Remove others until only the Kool-Aid is left. — jorndoe

But this makes no sense. Then why the Kool-Aid?

If you're positing an authority with unfettered powers to simply remove those who oppose them, they why bother with the Kool-Aid at all? Why not just say "we're in charge because we want to be and anyone who doesn't like it will get shot".

They need the Kool-Aid precisely because their ability to just shoot dissenters is limited.

For sure not by making concessions to Putin’s propaganda. — neomac

Exactly.

Putin says "The west are bullies who ignore the rise of the far-right because it suits them"

You think that not making concessions to his propaganda is - ignoring the rise of the far-right and bullying people into not mentioning it.

You'll really have to explain that.

I don't see how that addresses the issue at all. The point is that if Putin needs the humanitarian gloss to cover his invasion (which he evidently does) then threatening to remove that can be useful negotiation tactic. Saying "there's nothing to see here", when there's categorical evidence is not a sensible tactic. Sweeping the rug out from under him by promising to jointly investigate the problem at least has a chance of undermining some of his support in Russia if he refuses.

The point I'm making here (to @ssu as well), is that losing the war because NATO intervened doesn't harm Putin's grasp on power much. He's made a living out of playing the role of 'thorn in NATO's side', he's already played up NATO meddling as being responsible for the rise of the far-right, so I doubt he's much bothered for (eventually) losing in that way. Thus military aid is just going to worsen the situation.

How's it going to look to the average Russian if Putin says "I'm sending the military in to sort out this far-right problem that NATO have aided and abetted for too long" and we respond by saying "there's no such problem here, nothing to see, now move along or we'll bomb the shit out of you". How exactly do you see that undermining Putin's propaganda? Because to me we couldn't have done better if Putin had written the script himself.

We're literally playing the exact role of global bully ignoring the far-right to favour our economic interests, the very role Putin wants us to play for his propaganda machine.

What Putin might just be affected by is a loss of support in Russia. That he cares about (obviously so - otherwise he would have just said "I'm invading Ukraine and anyone who doesn't like it can fuck off").

So the question for the negotiation strategy is - how can we threaten to reduce his support in Russia.

To answer that, we need to know how that support is maintained and what is its weakest link. Putin's own justifications are our best guide - why does he need an humanitarian gloss? Obviously he feels that there's a potential chink in his armour, a weak link in his support who might be turned off a simple war of aggression. So that's where we stick the knife in.

You might want to argue that the way we do that is to claim there's no neo-Nazi problem, but there clearly is (there's a neo-Nazi problem in many countries, Ukraine's no exception), and this plays straight into his narrative because we're seen as ignoring it, which is exactly why he's got to invade.

So a much smarter move is to agree, to posit some kind of joint exercise, to ask to share intelligence. Then if Putin refuses, that weak point, those few he though he needed the humanitarian gloss to keep on side, might well withhold their support.

First I think you should define just what Putin losing would mean. — ssu

I mean withdrawing his troops prior to meeting his objectives (whatever they are). I mean the thing we're trying to get done - an end to the war.

Why do leaders need this? Simply to portray to their own people that they are doing the right thing. Or in this case, all the other options have been used and they cannot do anything else than a "special military operation" against neo-nazis.

Why was the US invasion of Iraq called Operation Iraqi Freedom and not Operation Iraqi Liberation? Why did George Bush link Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda and 9/11? — ssu

I wasn't asking about my understanding of the reasons (I already know them), I'm asking about yours. It's like wading through treacle talking to you, why can't you just answer the questions? Discuss the meta-questions later by all means, but at least open with a simple answer. What do you think the reason is why Putin needs a humanitarian-sounding gloss over his invasion?

The opinion of the Russian population is relevant to Putin for keeping his authoritarian power — neomac

And therefore is our most powerful bargaining tool. It's that simple.

Losing at Ukraine could be disastrous for Putin — ssu

You've not taken into account the element I asked you to consider. I asked how it would affect Putin if he lost, but could blame that loss on NATO/US/Europe meddling.

He's not a mad tyrant. His weakness might be that he has only a small group of yes-men that surround him and nobody of them wants to say how stupid or disastrous an invasion of Ukraine would be. His actions have worked tremendously well up to this point, hence to overplay one's card is nearly unavoidable. — ssu

This is a description, not an answer. Why does Putin need the humanitarian sounding rhetoric? Who does he need to convince of the morality of his actions and why does he have that need?

Indeed. I'm disturbed by the crass jingoism I read here and in the media, I just can't get my head around people lamenting the tragedy or war in one breath and then actively pursuing it as their number one response with the next.

I think the ploemicising effect of social media has had some part to play in this. We see, even here, how anyone not sabre-rattling for 'the west' must be an apologist for Putin, like those are the only two possibilities. Politicians know this and so have to be seen to be aligning themselves clearly. Thus, petty social media tribalism ends up having tragic real world effects.

I think, potentially (in my most pessimistic moments) that it doesn't even matter if we do learn from our mistakes here. Politician's interests are better served adhering to social media tropes than listening to a range of experts. It's not as if they weren't warned about what was likely to happen as a result of their continued provocation (without, as you say, any intent to back it up). They were warned, but it played better to a polarized public to go all out anti-russia bluff and hope it never got called. Well...

It hasn't even been understood yet. — Christoffer

And by what are you measuring 'understood'? It seems you're using it as simply synonymous with 'agrees with me'.

She said that she's not sure whether sending guns is better, even if it could be, but she knows for sure giving people a roof is always good. Can't believe she's only six at times! — Benkei

Always good to know as a parent that you can't have gone too far wrong when they come out with stuff like that.

I was going to reply, but I need only quote who has put it perfectly well.

By ignoring a legitimate grievance you make the propaganda effect even greater as the counter party can now say "See, see! they just deny these people exist (which we know they exist because I can play an interview of their grand plan to destroy Russia right now); therefore, EU and US are using these people against Russia." — boethius

The 'denazify' rhetoric isn't used in isolation. If it were, then there'd be no 'need' to invade just help the Ukrainian authorities and European antiterrorism units. No. The propaganda is "there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Europe/America are ignoring it, therefore we have to step in".

You're advocating that in response to this propaganda, we play exactly the role set out for us in it. And you seem to think that will help undermine it?

One has to prove that neo-nazi problem exists, if it is relevant and to whom. — neomac

Why? You've still not made clear your link between proof of the scale of Neo-Nazism (its mere existence is not even in question) and its role at the negotiating table.

So focusing on neo-nazi movements has some cheap propaganda benefits for Russia which may play well with some part of the Russian population (mainly for historical reasons) but it doesn't necessarily play well on a negotiation table with Ukraine, or other involved third parties (like EU and NATO). — neomac

Why not? You admit that the propaganda plays well in Russia, them claim that it's of no use in negotiations. If it plays well in Russia, then it's relevant to Putin's hold on power which makes it relevant negotiation position.

It's you pushing to escalate this war, not me.

There's no need for warlike denazification if the problem isn't worse than any other nation with neo-nazi groups. — Christoffer

Where did I say there was?

why do you even talk about this in the way you do? — Christoffer

If you want to know why, I suggest reading my post, in which I explain why. It's not rocket science.

It's a construct of lies to form a false narrative in which you cannot decipher anything without first dismissing the entirety of it. — Christoffer

...is one opinion. "you can decipher something without first dismissing the entirety of it." is another. In order to discuss these opinions you have to provide reasons for them.

What intelligence? — Christoffer

The intelligence Ukraine (and others) hopefully have on far-right extremism in their country. We have intelligence on far-right extremism in our country, you'd hope Ukraine does too.

it is an impossible demand to be met — Christoffer

You don't have to meet demands in negotiation, you have to go some way towards them.

Because it's a perfect propaganda machine reason. It fools the gullible idiots of the world to validate his reasons — Christoffer

Why? Why does Putin need to validate his reasons? Why can't 'the glory of Russia' be a reason? Why does he need 'gullible idiots of the world' to be fooled? And why fool them into thinking he's denazifying Ukraine? Why not fool them into thinking Russia's great and would be greater with Ukraine?

Bigger than what? The US? What about all other nations with far-right problems, especially in Europe? This is Putin's narrative getting to your head, making Ukraine worse than any other nation with a far-right problem. — Christoffer

Where have I said anything about Ukraine being a bigger problem than anywhere else?

Not to mention all connections Putin and Russia have to far-right movements in other nations. — Christoffer

What's that got to do with whether there's a neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine?

There's no reason to talk about a problem in a country where the entire infrastructure and living conditions are war. — Christoffer

I've literally been outlining exactly the reason for talking about it. If you don't agree, then your reasons for disagreeing are what we should discuss. Just saying "No" isn't much of a discussion.

There's no diplomacy around his propaganda reasons. You cannot sit down in peace talks and use made-up reasons for a ceasefire since that's not the reason he's in Ukraine. You cannot bargain with reasons that even he himself knows are untrue. — Christoffer

Of course you can. Diplomats do it all the time. All politicians lie, it's the narratives that get them into power and keep them there. It's the basic stuff of politics.

How do you use made-up ideas when everyone around the table of peace talks knows it's all bullshit? — Christoffer

It isn't bullshit. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. This is the distinction you keep failing to see. Putin using it as a justification for war is bullshit. It being worse in Ukraine than most other places is bullshit. It existing at all is not bullshit, so it can be used as a negotiation lever.

But even if it's met, it's a problem that is impossible to meet. — Christoffer

Not at all. Offer to share intelligence on them, ask Russia to identity the perpetrators, involve Russia security in joint surveillance... There's lots of ways to call his bluff.

Putin doesn't care about any of that. — Christoffer

Relates to my questions above...

@Christoffer,@ssu

I've a question (might ask @frank too given his reading on Putin) - two in fact.

1. What harm will it do to Putin if he loses the war in Ukraine as a consequence of NATO/US/ Europe assistance? How will such a situation harm his grip on power, rather than simply cement the 'bulwark against the west' narrative which keeps him there?

2. Why do you think Putin bothered with all the 'denazifying' and 'resist NATO expansion' pretexts? If he's the mad tyrant you say he is, why not just declare war on Ukraine for the glory of Russia and shoot anyone who disagrees?

I didn't talk about existence — neomac

Oh. You said

the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven. — neomac

That claim begins "There is..." It's a claim directly regarding the existence of something. It's very confusing for you to then deny you're talking about existence.

Perhaps you could clarify. How does "the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven." have any bearing on "relevance on a negotiation table". I'm not seeing the link.

the claim "There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine" needs to be proven. — neomac

From your article...

the role of right-wing radicals on both sides has on the whole been exaggerated — neomac

Russia’s use of right-wing radicals on the side of the “separatists” in Donetsk and Lugansk provinces had greater military and political repercussions than the involvement of Ukrainian far-right groups — neomac

How can a problem which doesn't exist be exaggerated? How can the Russians cause more military and political repercussions than something which doesn't exist?

And which of the conflicts would reject my hypothesis? — ssu

Your hypothesis begs its own question. You simply assume that the exhaustion precedes the peace talks and not that the progress of peace talks precedes the exhaustion.

Peace talk, involves everything from sit down discussions to back-channel whispers and progress from virtually day one of war.

If you seriously think wars are fought only with soldiers and then negotiators brought in at the end when everyone's tired you're more naïve than I thought.

Likewise if you think peace talks have to create a lasting state of harmony to work. A day's ceasefire is a huge humanitarian win.

But it's not about your hypothesis (which is nothing but a tautology "peace talks work when either side prefer peace to war" - well duh!). It's about your rejection of them as a tool. Almost every peace talk ever has started from a position of taking both side's grievances seriously, its a diplomatic exercise, not a court of law. Those that haven't have failed.

Putin pushes a propaganda narrative to justify his actions, there's no reality to that narrative. Why can't people understand this? — Christoffer

Because it's categorically not true. There is a Neo-Nazi problem in Ukraine. There's an even bigger far-right problem, and a bigger still nationalist/racist problem.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it cease to exist.

The fact that Putin's lying about it being the reason for his invasion does not make it best we never mention it and actively suppress all such talk.

What it does mean is that it might represent a good diplomatic lever in any peace negotiations. Being his stated aim (diplomatically), we have to be seen to be addressing it (diplomatically), for him to be able to back down.

That's the entire point of all this discussion.

In your blind polemicism you're triggered by every mention of the word 'Neo-Nazi' to assume the person is agreeing with Putin. We're talking about the process of a diplomatic route to peace. I know for warmongers like you that's an anathema, but others prefer to advocate stopping the death and destruction as quickly as possible by whatever means.

Peace negotiations happen either when a) one side has had enough and is facing at least the possibility of unconditional surrender / total defeat or when b) both sides have had enough of it. — ssu

1993 Cambodia, 1996 Guatemala, 1998 Northern Ireland, 1999 Columbia...

Peace talks work. They work better when adolescent-level idealists aren't bleating about the fact that one of the parties lied.



Forget it. It's like talking to children. Can you seriously not get your heads round the idea of diplomatically taking account of the stated grievances of one party without agreeing with them?

Can you seriously not tell the difference between working out what we could do (or could have done) to fix this and deciding who's to blame?

The oil giant said in a statement that the decision to purchase the fuel at a discounted price was "difficult". — BBC

Poor Shell. I hate to think of how 'difficult' a time those poor board members must have had.

What is the world coming to? One minute thousands of innocent people dying painful deaths, the next, corpulent profiteers having to make 'difficult' decisions. Isn't one tragedy enough!

Read properly. Neo-nazi problem. — ssu

Yep. So is it not a problem that there's Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, or is there no problem because there's no Neo-Nazis? It's not clear which is your claim.

Are you claiming that denying African people a place on the bus is 'not a problem'?

So there's a war going on in Ukraine.

Isaac: And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything? — ssu

Yes. You're dodging the issue. How do we stop wars? Is it by measuring how severe they are and hand-wringing about how bad it all is? Or is it by successful peace negotiations?

Just remembering the first comment you made on this thread, just 18 days ago: — ssu

Not sure the point you're trying to make here?

Is there? I don't think there is. I think there are neo-nazis in many countries. — ssu

So there are Neo-Nazis in many countries but not in Ukraine? Or there are Neo-Nazis in Ukraine but it's fine, we're happy to have a few Neo-Nazis here and there, life's rich pageant and all?

Which is it?

think in Ukraine there is a "Your neighbor wants to de-nazify you" problem.

I think that problem is far more severe than anything else — ssu

Right. And? What has the severity of the problem got to do with anything? We're talking about diplomatic solutions to try and stop the war, it's not a competition.

The point is that Putin has used the Neo-Nazi issue as a pretext for war. Constantly saying there's no Neo-Nazi problem just plays into that rhetoric, it makes it sound like a cover-up, like there's just two equal sides playing the same propaganda game.

But of course we can talk about Ukraine and for example Climate Change. Or Ukraine and Covid. Or wokeness in Ukraine. — ssu

All of which would be pointless because the person with whom we have to negotiate if we're to have a hope in hell of avoiding more bloodshed hasn't mentioned any of those issues. Seriously, this isn't LARPing, this is grown up international relations. If the best you can come up with is to keep whining "...but...but...he lied"... well welcome to the fucking adult political world. They all lie, all the fucking time. So.

The question, the only question is what the diplomatic response should be.

...

A little news from the border of the country where far-right nationalism is apparently not a significant problem.

It’s very emotional for me because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed — Ukraine’s Deputy Chief Prosecutor, David Sakvarelidze

Osarumen, a father-of-three, said he, his family members and other refugees were told to disembark a bus about to cross the border on Saturday and told, “No Blacks”.

Twenty-four Jamaican students who yesterday arrived in Lviv from Kharkiv by train are now being forced to walk 20km to Poland. The country’s foreign affairs minister, Kamina Smith, said they were blocked from boarding the bus that was carrying the students to Poland.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-refugees-racism-russia-invasion-b2024175.html

So I guess Rosa Parks was just blowing it all out of proposition, yes?

But we're not all that distant from the battleground. If they throw the a-bomb, I am close enough to be affected. I can forget about growing fruits and vegetables for the rest of my life. If I survive. — baker

Yep. The lives and livelihoods of millions are at stake if Putin launches anything nuclear.

But hey... Let's keep provoking him, see if we can't get him to do something really stupid. I think we should insult his mother next, maybe that'll do it.

Neonazis are not a significant factor in today's Ukraine. — Olivier5

Firstly, we're talking in the first instance about the allegations (the speech act and it's function in global diplomacy) not the facts of the case. If you drop the tribalistic cheerleader act for 30 seconds and actually read you might have recognised as much.

Secondly, the very question of how significant is 'significant' is the one @boethius asked. So all your comment does is beg the question.

The fact is that raising a topic like right-wing extremism in Ukraine now can send many the wrong message when there is this Russian leader that has invaded Ukraine and talking about de-nazification of the country lead by neo-nazis. I think you understand this too. — ssu

Where has this approach ever worked? It seems the latest fashion in information management but I don't see any precedent for it actually working. All it does it make you sound like you've got something to hide and as such pour petrol on the flames of conspiracy theories.

If there's a neo-nazi problem in Ukraine, and it's being used to justify war, we can oppose it being used that way without having to deny it exists, or suppress all talk of of it. We don't need to sink to his level and pretend that all Ukrainians are now Martin Luther King.

The leader of one of the largest countries in the world has just used the neo-nazi problem in Ukraine as a justification for war. If the best we can come up with by way of response is "shhh..." then we've lost all credibility as rational commentators.

Just to be clear, you think Putin is to blame for invading Ukraine, right? And that Putin did an immoral thing by attacking Ukraine? — RogueAI

Why is that even important? Are you considering elevating me to the judiciary? What does my moral judgement of Putin have to do with anything at all?

I just can't get my head around this. A series of events led to the absolute carnage we're seeing in Ukraine and all you lot seem to care about is who we should most blame, and some kind of perverse competition for who can condemn them most vehemently.

Honestly, who gives a fuck. Let's try and make sure it doesn't happen ever again. Let's every single actor in this tragedy work out what they could have done to prevent this so that we have snowball's chance in hell of not living the next 50 years with the same shit going on.

Nothing concrete can prove which it is? So invading Ukraine is the same as Sweden increasing its military spending and maybe joining NATO. — Christoffer

In the case of Poland. Or Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania etc.

It makes it harder to discuss the topic overall if a foundational piece is still up for debate. — Christoffer

That's a ridiculous threshold to insist on. "If we can't prove one of the theories outright, we can't move on to discuss anything else". That's just ludicrous.

Burden of proof still applies. — Christoffer

Prove it.

If NATO were to be blamed, then his motives would have some form of just cause. But if NATO is not to be blamed, then he acts alone or he acts through false or through invented reasons. — Christoffer

Personally, I don't give a shit who's to blame. I want to find out what went wrong so it doesn't happen again. If you're more interested in assigning blame than in preventing another such catastrophe, that's your lookout, but you can't expect others to be so spiteful.

Well, the reasons don't matter since joining NATO is basically done to increase security through an alliance of defense. — Christoffer

'To increase security' is a reason is it not? So now you're saying you do know their reasons. Or are you suggesting it's somehow impossible for a country to join NATO for reasons other than national defence?

You are here basically saying that nations actively join NATO "to threaten Russia" and if I cannot say the actual reason, it means the reason is "to threaten Russia". Really? — Christoffer

No. I'm saying that if you cannot say the reason then it might be to threaten Russia. I'm not the one ruling out options here. I'm perfectly happy to consider your 'mad man Putin suddenly decides to blow up the world' theory as possible. It's you who are trying to actually rule out a theory as out of bounds.

RECKLESSNESS DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NATO'S FAULT PUTIN INVADES UKRAINE! — Christoffer

AND I DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT WHO'S FAULT IT IS! WHY ARE WE WRITING IN ALL CAPS ALL OF A SUDDEN?

Imagine if Putin really is delusional, imagine that he truly is a fucking crazy man who belongs in a mental institution. Now, his mental condition makes him perceive everyone as a threat. People start taking actions to be able to have a defense against any kind of action he would take, irrational as he is. He doesn't see it that way, he sees conspiracy, he sees all of them threatening him, so he acts out violently. Fortunately, people had the defense, so they could defend against it, but your argument is that joining together for defense is partly to blame for Putin's violent outburst, so we should blame everyone who wanted to defend themselves. — Christoffer

Yes, that is exactly my argument. If you are a defensive alliance and your neighbour is a mad man prone to conspiracy theories, armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons you avoid at all costs any action which might provoke him to use them whilst you attempt to lower the threat level by non-provocative means. You do not provoke paranoia further by conducting joint military exercises on his fucking doorstep. These are people's lives at risk here, it's not a fucking scout club where we can kick out anyone who doesn't behave. I can't fathom how anyone could see that as anything short of criminal recklessness.

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. — ssu

Right. I was having trouble parsing the comments such as...

Listen, we can talk about the wrongs that the US and the West has done. Yes, Putin has referred to them too. But this thread is about the Ukraine crisis. Or now the Russo-Ukrainian war. — ssu

If you want to talk about US agenda and how it has extended it's network of alliances, including NATO, then fine. But then that talk isn't about the war in Ukraine in general. — ssu

...which seemed fairly unambiguous. No talk about US and European complicity here, thankyou!

But I'm glad we've cleared that up.

It would be like explaining WW2 by talking only about the war crimes that the Western allies did. — ssu

Scroll back through the thread. In what way have those blaming the US/NATO/Europe attempted to make the conversation only about that? I'll bet you can't find a single quote to that effect.

I can find plenty of quote dismissing their role, things like "it's all Putin", and several claims that including them is delusional and so forth.

At no point (in my reading) has anyone suggested that we only look at the role the US, Nato and Europe played in this. If I'm mistaken, you'll have to point to the quotes to that effect (and I mean from serious posters)

How is building a defense within your borders and act that creates guilt on your part if someone invades you? Explain already. — Christoffer

I don't know if you'd noticed, but defense and attack use the same military. Whether it's one or the other is about intent, nothing concrete can prove which it is.

In order to move on to more valid geopolitical talk, we have to establish if NATO is to blame or not. — Christoffer

Why?

So I ask again for any clear sign of guilt so that we can establish that as truth. — Christoffer

Why?

Because if we can establish that NATO is guilty, have equal blame for the actions Russia takes, be it the invasion of Ukraine, invasion of Sweden/Finland, or a nuclear strike, then that changes the discussion entirely compared to if Putin acts alone and "feels threatened" by the west. — Christoffer

Yes, I see how the discussion is changed, but you didn't say changed, you said "harder".

This is kindergarten philosophy. — Christoffer

In ontology maybe. We're talking politics here, we don't conduct political philosophy as if we were establishing the existence of God. God help us if we did.

Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence. — Isaac


Has nothing to do with establishing the guilt of NATO. — Christoffer

No, but it has everything to do with your "we can't discuss anything without concrete evidence" rule. If you demand concrete evidence before we can discuss 'The West's' role, then why doesn't the same criteria apply to you discussing Putin's motives?

It doesn't matter if they were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the reasons. — Christoffer

Of course it matters. Your argument is that it wasn't a threat to Russia, so their 'reasons' had to be something other than 'to threaten Russia'. If you can't say what their reasons were, then how can you say they weren't 'to threaten Russia'?

I'm making the analogy based on the guilt blaming of NATO in today's conflict with Russia. — Christoffer

Yes. An analogy which relies on them have solely defensive reasons to join NATO (and NATO solely defensive reasons to allow them). So your analogy fails unless you can demonstrate that this was the case.

The reasons can be the general security that each nation wanted to have. Maybe the general security was because the collapse of the Soviet Union was a bit of an unknown factor. Who knows? — Christoffer

You can't say "Who Knows?" in one breath and then in the other say that threatening Russia definitely wasn't one of them. If no-one knows the reasons, then why is Russia acting irrationally in assuming that threatening it wasn't one of them?

Show me concrete threats to Russia, I've asked many times, just answer for once. — Christoffer

We've been through this. There doesn't need to be 'concrete' threats for strategic decisions to be monumentally reckless. Concrete threats are not the only type of threat. In fact they're probably the least common since 1945.

If someone feels threatened by Russia and they go into an alliance with others who also feel threatened by Russia, in order to have better security against any potential Russian attack. THIS IS NOT AN ACT OF AGGRESSION AGAINST RUSSIA. This is an act of protection, affecting only the ones in that alliance. They have done NOTHING against Russia. — Christoffer

Yep. So I'm asking you what reason Poland had to feel threatened by Russia in 1997. Otherwise none of that is legitimate and we'd have to look for other reasons they joined NATO which might be more provocative.

you realize that your house is very close to criminal activity, maybe even organized crime. Maybe even hearing about attacks and home invasions that have been done close to you. — Christoffer

What criminal activity? What is the criminal activity in your analogy for Poland in 1997. What had Russia done that puts them in the 'criminal activity' role in your analogy?

the criminals don't like this, because it makes it harder for them to invade and claim people's homes for their activities. So they say to everyone that this security thing needs to "fuck off" or else. — Christoffer

Whose homes? When NATO started expanding in the late 1990s, whose 'homes' had Russia tried to invade?

you realize that "fucking off" will just make you open to invasion once more, — Christoffer

What do you mean 'once more'. Once more after which previous occurrence?

Your analogy seems flawed.

putting aside his fantasies about the US even attempting to spread democracy and his insanity about China — StreetlightX

Yeah, you have to wonder about the politics of some of the detractors here when one considers the political positions of some of the people that have actually sounded a note of temperance to their vitriol.

Next we'll be citing Ghengis Khan in his famous "Woah, hang on a minute, let's just think about this first..." speech

The problem becomes when suspicion is used as facts. When NATO gets "equal blame" for what is happening in Ukraine and any further action by Putin. — Christoffer

Go on... This is a problem because...

If you want me to take any of your conclusions seriously, you need more than conspiracy. I'm interested in rational arguments, not opinions, suspicions and speculations. — Christoffer

On the contrary, you've been presented with the rational arguments of no fewer than five experts in their relevant fields which you've summarily dismissed on the grounds of a lack of concrete evidence as you would use 'in a court of law'. You don't seem interested in rational arguments at all. You want a smoking gun or nothing.

Because it floods the discussion with distractions from the actual conflict, it muddies the waters with irrelevant nonsense that makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening and what could be happening. — Christoffer

And...? I'm still not seeing the harm. Again, assuming you're absolutely right and the US/NATO/Europe are entirely blameless. You could just ignore discussion speculating on their blame. You could swamp it in turn with discussion of...what exactly I don't know.... Since we all agree that Putin's actions are reprehensible and cannot be excused I don't really know what else you want to discuss.

The point is you don't. You expend virtually all of your efforts here on stamping out discussion of the extent to which the US/NATO might be to blame.

Perhaps you could explain the link you made above in "...makes it harder to actually dissect what is happening". How does expert speculation make it harder to dissect what is happening? It seems to enact your policy you'd need to decide in advance what's happening so that you can rule out alternative theories from muddying the water. But then what would the discussion be for?

Or perhaps you want to limit discussion to only that which has concrete evidence? No speculation.

Have you concrete evidence that NATO weren't to blame in any way? Have you concrete evidence that, of all the things Putin has said about his motives, the ones you've picked out are his 'true' motives? Not just informed speculation, concrete evidence.

Once again my house invasion analogy:

Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer — Christoffer

Well hang on. For this analogy to hold Poland would have to have been threatened with invasion by Russia to motivate it to join NATO back in 1997. A real concrete threat by your standards. So, prior to 1997, what was the real concrete threat of Russia invading Poland? I'm no Poland history expert, but I don't recall any near misses around that time. For that matter I can't recall anything prior to Latvia and Estonia joining either - not something which meets your actual and concrete threat threshold.

I may well be misremembering, so help me out here. In your analogy - who's the criminal and what concrete evidence did the countries joining NATO have that he wanted to 'break into their houses'

First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc. — Christoffer

I need do nothing of the sort. If there is suspicion that NATO is unduly influenced by the US (as has already been presented) that is sufficient. Suspicion needs to be aired, widely disseminated, and untempered by pointless conservatism. Why? Because it's our job as citizens to hold our authorities to account. It's neither our job to excuse them, nor is it our job to judge them as a court of law might. They excuse themselves and we actually have courts of law to judge them as a court of law might, so there's no need for us to do so. Our job is to hold them to account.

I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. — Christoffer

Nor will you. NATO are not stupid. They're hardly going to issue a concrete threat to a sovereign nation are they? Yet the threats are legitimate nonetheless. As Steven Pifer, former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, said...

There are some concerns on the Russian side that are legitimate

So what's your point? We're not allowed to hold NATO to account without the bloodied dagger in our hand? Why are you insisting on that level of evidence, what does it gain?

I've answered your questions over and over (though you may not like the answers), yet you've still not done me the courtesy of answering my very simple one. What is the objective in absolving the US, NATO and Europe with such passion?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I and all the experts I've cited are wrong. NATO, the US and Europe are completely blameless in all this. What harm comes from discussing the perceived blame? They're all big boys, I'm sure they can handle being blamed for something they didn't do. So what exactly drives you with such passion to ensure that all discussion of their role in this is stamped on?

just saw a tension between that and the following:

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac — jamalrob

Yeah, I see that. I think the idea is that the response should always be appropriate and defensive, and many feel that it has been unhelpful and provocative. If there's a person whose empire-building narrative is based on opposing the "military advance of the west", then 'the west' advancing its military might not be the best strategic response - out of all the other options we had. It's like they'd read the script for Putin's screenplay.

Yeah, what people keep getting wrong about anti-capitalist thought is that it entails some kind of conspiracy, that aim is always taken at the puppet-master consciously planning to fuck the world over. But it's exactly the opposite. This is what a capitalist economy is, this is what happens when you just wind up the key and set it going.

The purpose of the NATO expansion was surely always about the Russian threat, no? — jamalrob

Well, depends whose analysis you read.

No less a hawk than Tom Friedman wrote

The mystery was why the U.S. — which throughout the Cold War dreamed that Russia might one day have a democratic revolution and a leader who, however haltingly, would try to make Russia into a democracy and join the West — would choose to quickly push NATO into Russia’s face when it was weak. — Tom Friedman

and the architect of Russian containment George Kennan

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war, I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. — George Kennan

And Mary Elise Sarotte reminds us that

At a summit in Helsinki, Clinton promised to give Yeltsin four billion dollars in investment in 1997, as much as the U.S. had provided in the five years prior, while also dangling W.T.O. membership and other economic inducements. In return, Russia would effectively allow unencumbered NATO enlargement. Yeltsin worried that these measures could be perceived as ‘sort of a bribe,’ but, given Russia’s empty coffers and his uphill prospects for re-election, he relented.

All my own underlinings.

Russia were simply not a threat at the time of NATO expansion. They were crippled and crumbling further. NATO expansion was (according to these commentators, anyway) more a lazy ..."if you want..." attitude, with reckless little thought given to the provocation it would result in.

I'm not blind to the problems of modern liberal capitalism, but at least it leaves some room to maneuver, to try and make something better. In the United States, for instance, there has always been some hypocrisy in our talk of freedom and equal rights; we all know that. But some of our talk, and our publicly stated beliefs, amounted to "fake it until you make it". — Srap Tasmaner

It's not an 'at least', it's a feature of the system. You see it as counterbalance to the rampant consumerism, but I see it as a counterpart. This is obviously not the place to go into a long discussion about capitalism, so I'll try to keep it relevant, but, as I see it, capitalism is involved in solving one problem and one problem only - how do we keep people buying stuff when it's clearly not in their best interests to do so. Labour saving devices, cool stuff like washing machines and cars, simply don't need replacing as fast as it's possible to have them replaced. New cool things simply aren't needed as frequently as it's possible to generate an artificial need for. Since everyone working as cogs in the machine only have their own job, their own promotion and their own wage packet to consider, they all simply do their jobs to the best of their ability, which means we're working to the 'possible', not the 'need'.

Anyway - to the relevance. Someone like Putin is just a part of that system. If everyone is just doing their job to the best of their ability, then Putin is doing 'mad dictator' to the best of his ability. So the question is why was there a 'mad dictator' job opening in the first place. Need there have been? I'm not talking about conscious conspiracy (though I've no concerns at all about invoking it, government intelligence services can and do interfere with foreign elections, there's no doubt about that). I'm just saying that rather than seeing Putin's tyranny as being opposed to liberal capitalism, we'd better understand it as one of the consequences

Matt Taibbi in his latest Substack post writes

I’ve been bitter in commentary about Putin in recent years because I never forgot the way the West smoothed his rise, and pretends now that it didn’t.

Given a country which is going to provide massive opportunities for corruption-ridden investments, a supply of oil which can be controlled by influencing a single person, and an almost permanent bogeyman to fuel the enormous arms industry (not how many tanks to we need, how many tanks is it possible for us to need) - what sensible capitalist government, doing its job, turning its cogs, is going to remove such a component?

That's all interesting stuff, and you've been kind enough to answer the first half of my question. So I wonder if you'd perhaps consider the second.

For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated?

I can see why you'd be super keen on making sure everyone knew what a capricious madman Putin was. Right on your doorstep and with no massive military alliance to protect you, it must be scary, so you want the world to know what a threat he presents so they don't let him get away with it. I get that.

But I'm still not seeing any link to this passionate dismantling of any and all attempts to talk about the role the US, Europe and NATO have played in bringing this crisis about. After all, that narrative requires that Putin is an empire building madman. The whole crux of the 'US/NATO to blame' narrative is "If you knew all along that Putin was an empire-building madman, they why the fuck did you keep poking him with a big stick", so our two narratives would seem, on the face of it, to serve the same purpose. We should not be at odds at all. You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't.

Hence I'm confused as to why you'd want to remove US and Europe's culpability every time that narrative is put forward. I mean, looking back over the thread, you've expended more words on excusing the US than you have on warning us about Putin. I just want to know how excusing the US fits into your objective from that unique perspective you outlined.