So this thread is just a guise for parroting Ayn Rand. Got it.

yet it looked like Chomsky was the dill from my vantage point! — invizzy

Then you either weren’t paying attention or you were clouded by prejudice towards Sam. I can’t see any way around it.

It’s as if you watched the Chomsky/William F Buckley conversation and came away believing Buckley looked good and Chomsky the “dill.” Come on.

It’s a stupid question. The better question is: why do we create governments?

Plenty of answers.

Why MUST you be governed? Why— WHY?

Don’t you want to be free from Big Brother? Yet you never choose freedom…you MUST go with being scrutinized, watched, collectivized. Why, why??

If only we could be more like John Galt.

Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. — ssu

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. After repeating now several times, if you’re not interested in looking at what was said at NATO summits, by the White House, by Blinken, and by actions like providing weapons and training, then I’m not sure how else to proceed.

“Large support” from whom? There’s large support for a two state solution in Israel, too — in the international community. But that won’t happen, because Israel and the US reject it. The same here — Germany and others have said some reasonable things, but capitulate to the US nearly every time.

If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful. — ssu

No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either.

izing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.
— Xtrix

If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. — ssu

There were no annexations in 2008, which is when this started — thanks to ridiculous moves by the Bush administration.

Of course Russian actions matter, but you’re mixing timelines. You denied Manuel’s assertion that there were repeated threats to Russia regarding NATO. That denial is unfounded.

Again I recommend reading the Bucharest summit transcripts.

Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. — ssu

:roll:

But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you. — ssu

Russia does not have a NATO veto, de facto or otherwise. It managed to delay membership of Georgia and Ukraine, but the US and NATO continued pushing through weapons, training, and the promise of future membership — as was literally reiterated all the way up to the 2021 summit.

That fact seems to evade you.

NATO threat to Russia was very real, and supported by the facts — should we choose to look at them. Or we can go with our feelings.

Banned @Yohan for extreme flaming.

Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine. — ssu

It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. Nevertheless, attempts kept being made, before and after Crimea and right up to Blinken’s remarks. The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.

Even up to the present year:

"They must understand that the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward"
“if our proposals are rejected ... we will make a decision on how to ensure our security in a reliable way,” -- Lavrov, January 2022

This was indeed rejected, and Russia invaded Ukraine a month later. I already mentioned Blinken's response.

There were other threats also besides NATO membership, which we can get into. Weapons, military training, etc.

You deny that this is the main reason. I think it is the main reason. There are other reasons which we can talk about. Believing that the main reason is to "make Russia great again" doesn't have much evidence supporting it, but I'm interested in whatever you have.

How can territorial annexations be less important? — ssu

Less important than what?

I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.
— Xtrix
You should not be biased. — ssu

Silly comment. We're all biased. When I say biased here, it's a matter of emphasis. I put more emphasis on the US, because it's my country. It also happens to have contributed significantly to the war.

Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity. — ssu

Which is why I've given facts -- like the 2008 NATO summit, the 2021 NATO summit, the public statements by the White House in September of 2021 and by Secretary of State Blinken in January 2022. All part of the public record, all show exactly what Manuel had mentioned (and you disputed): repeated warnings from Russia ignored; the US pushing for NATO membership and involvement with Ukraine for years.

You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot? — ssu

It didn't change the historical record.

Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia. — ssu

Yes, success in blocking it. What was being blocked?

And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

And reiterated in June of 2021, which I quoted.

And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. — ssu

Blinken— far more importantly — made the statements I cited THIS YEAR as well.

This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false.

It was never was about NATO membership in the first place — ssu

What is it about, then? I’ve heard a number of stories about being anti-democracy, having imperial ambitions, and being an evil madman. But I don’t find any of that compelling, based on the facts. Maybe it’s true — But I think after years of saying the same thing, consistently, it’s no surprise that something would eventually happen.

The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Like what?

Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu

I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes.

Anyway — you’re getting emotional, I think. Remember what I mentioned earlier: I’m not defending Putin, and I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.

Says the Trump-supporting corporatist. :yawn:

the exchange with Chomsky was cringeworthy. — I like sushi

Glad I wasn’t the only one who cringed. As a general fan of Harris, I was really disappointed. I was hopeful for a meaningful exchange, but Sam simply could not hear the answers Chomsky gave about American “intention” regarding Al Shifa.

Too bad.

Yes indeed. See above as well, from 2021 Summit.

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Read the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 2021. Doesn’t seem all that reassuring.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

Also:

“There is no change, there will be no change,” Blinken said when asked whether the formal response delivered to Moscow includes any alteration to NATO’s “open door policy,” which states that membership in the alliance is open to any European country that is in a position to “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

https://news.yahoo.com/there-will-be-no-change-us-bats-down-russian-demands-in-ukraine-crisis-210222078.html

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO. — ssu

It isn’t true. The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed:

The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

Amid a litany of such threats from Moscow, some NATO members are reluctant to inflame tensions at the three-day summit that begins Wednesday in Bucharest.

On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said admitting the two countries to NATO was "not a matter of whether, but when." However, he said the launch of the membership process might be delayed at this week's gathering.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership because of Russian objections— Putin, remember, was invited to that summit.

From NATO summit 2021:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

None of this supports your claim. The US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian membership long before Crimea. Manuel is right: the West ignored Russian warnings, over and over again.

In case it needs to be said yet again: this doesn’t justify Putin’s actions, and it doesn’t mean the US is the sole cause of the war. Let’s try to grow out of immediately jumping to those conclusions — and keep to the facts.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.
— Manuel
No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period.
But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea.

So the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine

And the answer is the same: of course not.

The danger of simplicity comes from only permitting a single narrative. — Paine

Yes.

I'm guessing a neutral but independent Crimea would be unacceptable to Putin. Any chance of that? — jorndoe

I would think it unlikely, but I’m no expert. It’s not a bad idea.

While it is obvious that the fighters cannot be decoupled from what supports them, treating Ukraine as merely a pawn in a geopolitical game is not going to lead to an end of the war. — Paine

Right, but of course it’s not that simple. As I mentioned earlier, there seemed to be a possible agreement in March/April until the UK and US discouraged the deal. On the other hand, if the US or UK suddenly wanted peace, it doesn’t mean Zelenskyy would automatically go for it.

I think a possible solution is simply for the US and UK to not interfere with negotiations. I’d prefer they encourage them, but that is neither probable nor (it has been argued) necessarily beneficial.

In any case — they’re not merely a pawn. But it’s hard to deny that this has become a proxy war.

Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbas/Crimea annexations by Ukraine in exchange for peace is a good compromise to you? — neomac

I think Ukraine neutrality is good. Recognition of Donbas, no. Recognition of Crimea -- maybe.

But it's not up to me. That's up to the people of Ukraine. No negotiation is going to be easy, and both sides will have to give something up. It cannot be that Russia simply gets everything it wants in exchange for peace, no. But then those aren't really negotiations.

I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. — Manuel

Then I stand corrected. I hadn't seen this either, but then it's a very long thread and I haven't always been great keeping up with it.

Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time. — Manuel

There's a lot of emotions at play, and that will skew the perceptions -- mine included. I do indeed have a tendency to view the United States government negatively. I think I'm right to do so and can support it, but it's still true that this is my basic orientation, given what I know about the US and its history.

Others, also correctly, will be hostile towards Russia because of its war crimes and the fact they started all this by invading, which cannot be overlooked.

But much like 9/11, this hatred will also skew the ability to understand the causes of the indefensible event. Anyone who talked about the US involvement in the 9/11 attacks were immediately condemned as siding with terrorists. People weren't ready to hear any of it.

All of this is fairly typical. I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages. But otherwise it's not extraordinary.

Well, let's try. — ssu

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. I don't have a lot of political power, but of what power I do have I'd like to put to the best use. Because I live in the United States, it will be mostly confined to its government. So I ask what role the US has played in this conflict, what its plan is, and how it can best bring the conflict to an end. This is what Olivier and I had been discussing previously, which ended in agreement.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about any of this. The controversy will lie in the details -- about NATO's expansion and its role in the war, about whether or not the US has helped or hindered peace talks, about the true threat of nuclear war, etc.

I'm not in favor of capitulating to bullies. I'm not in favor of appeasement. I am in favor of diplomacy and compromise. And in listening to all parties involved -- with a skeptical ear.

That's as clear as I can be at the moment.

And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. — ssu

That’s not Chomsky’s position, and it’s not my position. Nor is it anyone else’s position on this thread that I’ve seen.

The US government being the “bad guy all the time” is a strange accusation. We’re analyzing government actions — whether good or bad is a separate issue. Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way.

But I’ll give you what you want:

- It’s a positive thing that the US is helping Ukraine defend itself. (What isn’t positive is their getting in the way of peace negotiations.)
- Putin’s actions are repugnant and I condemn them.

Funny that this needs repeating, since I — and everyone else — has been saying it all along.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist.

I think she's right. It takes a long time to build these things, so we should be using what is there for as long as possible.

Now, yes. Never say never though. — Olivier5

I don't. I'll keep trying to push things in that direction -- I just don't see the odds of success as probable. But as long as there's a chance, it's worth doing. It's a similar attitude I have towards a lot of issues.

You are being ridiculously sensitive, taking criticism of your position as criticism of yourself. — apokrisis

It wasn't critical of my position -- which you failed to grasp -- it was a strawman about a "neocon analysis" and then platitudes about bravely facing the world "as it is" by adopting "accurate assessments" (it's taken for granted that you have done so, I suppose).

So yes, I'll be sensitive about that in this case. I was careful not to add unnecessary, condescending commentary in my responses to you and didn't want to start down that path in this thread -- there's already been enough heat here. I figured it was best to point out that you were the one who initiated it.

Anyway -- this is boring. Be well.

Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it. — Olivier5

True. That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately.

Or rather, let others do it, and quietly encourage them. — Olivier5

Sure. I'm not married to any one strategy -- I just want the war to end. If that's the outcome, I don't care how it's done. Again, I harp on the US because I live here.

If the US was seen as pushing for negotiations, it would weaken Ukraine's hand in those negotiations. — Olivier5

Not sure about this claim. It may very well be true that the US should just stay out of the way altogether. I would prefer to see them push for negotiations, quietly or otherwise. If done in good faith, I don't think their involvement would be a dealbreaker.

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman.
— Xtrix

Which in the end you cannot disprove. — ssu

Is this an argument?

I guess I can’t disprove that the war in Iraq wasn’t to spread freedom and democracy either. Maybe it really was!

Insults? — apokrisis

Yes. Claiming someone you disagree with is not seeing the “actual world” or should look at the world “as it is” is an insult. You could just as easily present your argument without doing so.

Biden would have no credibility in that role. — Olivier5

The administration could still throw its weight behind negotiations.

I don’t feel you’ve really understood me. A lot of your post is strawmaning. And I want it to be noted that it was you who started with insults, not me.

That said:

But the US level of provocation was tiny compared to the level of Russian escalation. — apokrisis

This comparison is meaningless.

Do you think the Obama and the Trump years somehow left Putin no choice? Or that Biden arrived and suddenly Putin saw a leader of cunning and flair? In poker terms, Putin had to go all in on whatever cards were in his hand? — apokrisis

No.

But in this conflict, you can’t claim the US engineered events. And you can’t blame it for taking advantage if a cheap opportunity now presents itself. — apokrisis

I never said the US engineered the events.

I can blame it for contributing to the war’s occurrence and its protraction — for reasons I’ve discussed at length.

You might wish that humanity was somehow different from what it is. The first step would be to start by accepting it as it is with an accurate assessment. — apokrisis

I’d be careful, before insulting someone, that you have a very clear understanding of things. As is the case with most people who launch accusations like this, I don’t see much evidence of it. I see a standard narrative that conceals information.

I side with analysts like Peter Zeihan who stress that the US has always tended towards isolationism because of its geography. It just needs to secure Canada and Mexico as part of its North American hegemony and life is sweet. Anything more is gravy. — apokrisis

This is complete nonsense.

The US has been at war in nearly every year since its founding. It’s true that the population often doesn’t want war — at the beginning of WW1 and post Vietnam — but that has nothing to do with state action.

The current economy is also a global one. The US government, contrary to your claims, knows this very well.

It owns a lion’s share of the US debt, — apokrisis

It does not own the lion’s share of US debt.

Again I reiterate your own accusation: perhaps it’s best to know something about the actual world.

So your geopolitical analysis builds in outdated neocon presumptions about the US’s self interests. — apokrisis

There’s nothing “neocon” about my analysis of US foreign policy.

it is better off becoming the isolationist regime that always made the most self-interested geopolitical sense. — apokrisis

Doubtful. But even if true, it isn’t close to happening.

China is also about to fall off its demographic cliff. Let it try to pivot to an economics of domestic consumption as the US pulls all its manufacturing back to cheap and reliable Mexico. — apokrisis

There’s going to be less people in China. The US is also below replacement levels, though not as much.

Mexico has nowhere near the infrastructure and labor force China has.

Of course it will take another 10 years for the whole US system to itself reorientate to this new reality. — apokrisis

This new reality you talk about — apparently a move towards “isolationism” — doesn’t exist. It didn’t exist under Trump, it doesn’t exist under Biden. The people who run this country — corporate America — and their bedfellows (politicians) are nearly all neoliberals. This involves the rest of the world, both in commodities and in labor. That’s not going to change. What may change is US hegemony.

A neocon analysis is so 1990s - even if it is true that large chunks of US institutional thinking might be still stuck in that time warp. — apokrisis

My analysis has nothing whatever to do with neoconservatism.

Large chunks of US institutions are neoliberals — globalists. Both democrats and republicans. It’s not 1990s, it’s been every decade since roughly 1980 to the present.

Hope I have shown that my narrative is based on the world as it is, even if that is also a world in transition. — apokrisis

No, it’s the world you claim it is — and that claim is deeply inaccurate and made without any convincing evidence, historical or otherwise.

Well that’s a merit!

I think it overlooks the fact that the US helped provoke this war, and that this is also a great opportunity to weaken an enemy by proxy — all under the cover of merely helping the underdogs who are being attacked by a madman.

The US doesn’t act benevolently at this scale. Russia and their ally, China, have been defying the international order, of which the US is in charge, and this is threatening to US hegemony.

In my view, this is partly why we have a war, why the US is supporting Ukraine to the degree it is, and why it has and continues to discourage peace negotiations.

None of this is evident from the narrative you provide, however accurate it may otherwise be.

Yep, occasionally I reuse/post stuff from those text files, and yep I do type the darn forum code in myself. — jorndoe

Well that seems tedious, but kudos to you for doing so!

Did you not realize Trump would back the US off the world stage instead? — frank

:lol:

Crimea wasn’t a step too far. Donbas separatism wasn’t a step too far. But taking over Ukraine to add to Belarus as part of the new Russian empire expanding back towards its “rightful” place in the world is where you might want to rationally call a halt. And given the chance of a people only too eager to lead their own fight, the US at last had a chance just to spend the dollars and not get directly involved in the way that always goes wrong. — apokrisis

That’s probably all true, in my opinion. But it’s not a complete picture. It’s a narrative that leaves out a lot of information — information that’s equally true and relevant.

Sorry, this may seem out of left field and no offense is meant, but I’m wondering: do you write all of these links out yourself, or are these somehow copy-and-paste jobs?

Seems like a lot of work if the former— and a shame, because my instinct is always to ignore them entirely. I’m not sure why — maybe too much information, maybe it looks like a paste-job, etc. But I’m curious either way. You do it often.

The basic idea is that the reason Putin invaded is that nobody did anything when he took Crimea. It was nothing but positive for him. — frank

I don’t pretend to have any special knowledge about Putin’s motivations. I’m sure this played a role. I’m sure egoism played a role, etc.

Then we can listen and hear the explanations he’s given and see what we think. When he claims that NATO expansion was a threat to Russian security, we can ask if that’s played a role as well. I think it undoubtedly has.

So there’s a lot to be said of why he’s committed this crime. I’m more interested in how my government is involved and what it can do to stop the war. Which is what we were discussing — not speculations about Putin’s intentions.

So the notion is that if we don't punch Russia in the nose now, it's going to continue taking things. — frank

Yes— an idiotic and suicidal notion, but seemingly the current policy of my government. That’s what I’d like to change.

I would think that after Bucha and all the other crime scenes, it's easy to understand why the Ukrainians would want revenge and wouldn't be interested in diplomacy. — Olivier5

Right, all the more reason why the examples I mentioned are poor justifications — given by the US — for not encouraging talks. It’ll only get more people killed as this escalates, with the potential for nuclear war. That’s just madness. I don’t by any means blame the Ukrainian people for not being calmly rational about all this, but the US and UK certainly can try to be — for the sake of both the Ukrainians and the world.

On the US side, they have the Red Army right where they want it: in a trap. It is also easy to understand why they don't press for diplomacy. — Olivier5

Yes, and then consider what I quoted earlier:

To put it simply, the U.S. position that the war must continue to severely weaken Russia, blocking negotiations, is based on a quite remarkable assumption: that facing defeat, Putin will pack his bags and slink away to a bitter fate. He will not do what he easily can: strike across Ukraine with impunity using Russia’s conventional weapons, destroying critical infrastructure and Ukrainian government buildings, attacking the supply hubs outside Ukraine, moving on to sophisticated cyberattacks against Ukrainian targets. All of this is easily within Russia’s conventional capacity, as U.S. government and the Ukrainian military command acknowledge — with the possibility of escalation to nuclear war in the not remote background.

The assumption is worth contemplating. It is too quickly evaded.

So while it’s easy to understand, it’s not easy to accept — at least for me. I think the US is making a terrible and potentially fatal mistake. To roll the dice like this is, again, madness.

Still, I didn't know that Johnson had (alledgedly) this effect on Zelensky. — Olivier5

You’ve also heard comments made by secretary Austin about the US’s goals:

“we want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can't do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine."

US officials, however, had previously been reluctant to state as plainly that the US' goal is to see Russia fail, and be militarily neutered in the long term, remaining cautiously optimistic that some kind of negotiated settlement could be reached.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/04/25/politics/biden-administration-russia-strategy/index.html

That’s what troubles me — not the fact that the US is helping Ukrainians defend their country from an invasion. They should do that, as should the whole world. But in conjunction with that defense should also be equally serious pressure to engage in peace negotiations.

The justification for not doing so — that Putin is a war criminal, that a guarantee on not joining NATO is unacceptable, etc. — is less than unconvincing, in my view.

I gave a sample of reports above. There are others, if interested.

So one cannot say that the US is evidently blocking negotiations. It is not. — Olivier5

It appears that they are, yes. I gave a sample of sources above. Is it easily “verified”? No— because the meetings occur behind closed doors and we’re left only with accounts given by officials who are present and who corroborate the charge. But I think It’d be quite clear anyway, given what’s known about the government, who owns the government, what their interests are, and the historical record.

It’s much harder to believe they aren’t blocking (or at least discouraging) negotiations.

I grant you that the US is not encouraging negotiations either. — Olivier5

So what is your stance exactly? That the US is neutral regarding negotiations?

So what would happen if Biden or anyone else would try and "force" Ukraine to initiate peace negotiations? Only more posturing. — Olivier5

I think you underestimate the power and pull of the US. While it’s a declining power, it’s still the international “godfather.” If the US were pushing negotiations, I think the conflict would end very soon. But that would have to include an agreement that Ukraine never join NATO — so it’s unlikely the US will ever encourage peace talks and if they do, highly unlikely they will support a potential agreement.