I dislike the little wannabe dictator — Tzeentch

Don't let knee-jerk antifrog racism blur your thinking. Macron is easy to dislike, but he is not a wannabe dictator.

The only thing that would get Europeans and Europe to truly emphasis on defense would be the total departure of the US from Europe. — ssu

Agreed. It's not unrealistic, with republicans like Trump, it could well happen.

He wants to talk about that instead of postponing the topic until after some presently inconceivable terminus. That approach may become useful someday. — Paine

Exactly. A diversity of views within NATO is not a weakness, as long as allies respect and listen to each other while moving forward. NATO must defend democracy, not undermine it.

This being said, I personally appreciate US leadership within NATO, in this particular instance. But it has a lot to do with Biden. Had the pres been Trump, NATO would have been nowhere in sight. The advent of Trump (and Bush before him) is one if the reasons why Europeans don't trust Americans over the long term: the US is on a decline, and as it turns out, their elections are relatively easy to manipulate.

They are speculations. If you want to claim they are implausible where is the argument? — neomac

It seems to me that your speculations about Macron dreaming to become Napoleon IV are not empirically testable and serve no purpose that I can see. You might as well speculate that Biden secretly wants to enslave Western Europe, or that Merkel fantacized to become a second Hitler...

Both you and @Tzeentch actually.

More speculation. The US cannot forever treat its European allies as poodles. Not France in any case. The French are perfectly capable of telling the US to fuck off, and we regularly do so when we think it's in order, eg on the Iraq war. Anyone expecting us to just shut up and follow Washington's orders is sorely mistaken. Macron is perfectly within this French role in NATO, and I dare say that if France was not traditionally playing this role in NATO, someone else would probably step up and do it, because it's a useful role.

So he’s trying to use Russian security concerns as a pivot to make Europeans step in that direction, hopefully with the support of other prominent allies. — neomac

That's speculative, and far fetched.

In NATO, the only nation ever pushing back against the US is France. Other nations may agree with the French but they will not dare to say it. So Macron follows upon a time honored tradition: that of the guy talking about the elephant in the room, which all other partners are busy ignoring.

He's talking about discussing "security guarantees" for Russia. And as far as I know these are the security guarantees Putin wanted — neomac

I doubt Macron is trying to appease Putin. I don't quite see what the point of that would be, and he can't do that all alone anyway. I mean, the guarantees he is talking about would be given by NATO, not by France, so there's no sense in trying to go alone on this.

If you pay attention to what he actually said, the point he is making is that allies ought to discuss this, and come to some common position about what they can compromise on, what they are ready to offer in exchange for peace.

But what are the odds for him to succeed? — neomac

Macron is only stating the obvious: that Russia ain't going to disappear from the map, and Ukraine and her allies will have to live with it.

I am not sure what success looks like, when someone states the obvious. Maybe success in this case is measured by the amount of anger, suspicion and lamentations about his statement?

And he is right.

But it's good that you yourselves seem to have realized this is not an option either. — Tzeentch

You mean, living on Mars is not an option? I must share planet Earth with other human beings? What? Eight billion of them? Oh shoooooot!...

(you ought to realize that nobody is perfectly independent or sovereign. We all have to make compromises)

giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

Giving up one's virginity voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of virginity.[/quote]

And Ukrainians have seen how prosperous and stable this has made other countries. — ssu

And peaceful, too.

Irina Scherbakova from Memorial: 'No Diplomatic Solution' to Ukraine War, hasty calls for peace are 'childish'
By AFP
13 hours ago

There is currently no diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine, a co-founder of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Russian rights organization Memorial said Sunday.

"I am absolutely convinced that there is not a diplomatic solution with Putin's regime, so long as it is still there," said Irina Scherbakova.

"The solution that there will now be is a military one," said Scherbakova, who was presented with an award for her human rights work at a ceremony in Hamburg, Germany.

There would ultimately be some form of diplomatic resolution to the conflict, she said.

"But these decisions, this diplomacy will only happen when Ukraine believes it has won this war and can set its terms," she said.

Hasty calls for peace were "childish," she said, adding that things would not return to the way they were before the outbreak of the conflict.

"This war has turned so many things upside down, it will never be like that again," she said.

In Hamburg, Scherbakova was presented with the Marion Doenhoff Prize for her years of work on human rights in her home country by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Scherbakova's efforts showed the way of a "better future for Russia," Scholz said, even if the prospect "still seems unlikely."

The war would not end with "a victory for Greater Russian expansionism," said Scholz, who has faced repeated criticism for not doing more to support the Ukrainian war effort.

Russia would, however, "still be there" after the end of the conflict, Scholz stressed.

Scherbakova's organization, Memorial, will be presented with the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo on Saturday December 10.

Memorial was awarded the prize along with fellow campaigners the Centre for Civil Liberties in Ukraine and the Belarussian activist, Ales Bialiatski.

One of the foremost Russian civil liberties organizations, Memorial has worked for decades to shed light on terrors from the era of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, while also compiling information on ongoing political oppression in Russia.

The group, founded in 1989, was forcibly shut down by Russian courts at the end of 2021 and Scherbakova left Moscow following the invasion of Ukraine. She is now based in Germany.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/12/04/no-diplomatic-solution-to-ukraine-war-nobel-winner-a79584

To that I said, it is practically impossible, since it must accept overlordship from either Washington or Moscow. Whether it accepts overlordship voluntarily or by force doesn't matter to the final state of affairs. — Tzeentch

It may not matter to you but still matter to them.

No, giving up one's sovereignty voluntarily or at gunpoint results in exactly the same situation: a lack of sovereignty. — Tzeentch

L'obéissance à la loi qu’on s’est prescrite est liberté.
(Obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is freedom.)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Of the Social Contract

Not any more than you dish out.

It's been explained regularly on this thread — Benkei

Translation: some posters, including you, have tried very hard over 400+ pages to peddle the lie that Putin is only defending Russia against NATO, or that NATO provoked Russia into a war with Ukraine. The rest of us wonder if you are just criminally stupid, or worse, complicit.

Now you may delete my post because it's "poor quality". :-)

:up:

Russia sure are touchy about names. — Isaac

What's in a name? did Juliet ask. Note my use of the scare quotes, which in this case implies ironic distance. As @hypericin picked up: "This "ally in all but name" sure didn't seem to buy Ukraine much security". Such an ally can be dropped in a New York minute, if supporting it becomes inconvenient, and it certainly does not oblige the US to spill American blood to defend it.

They were a NATO/US ally in all but name. — Tzeentch

Yes, and that will continue. Maybe I am wrong and Ukraine will manage to officially join NATO. I'm just saying that it will be harder than joining the EU. If they fail to join NATO, they can always remain "a US ally in all but name".

Why would it all of a sudden illicit a reaction even worse than conventional war if it wasn't the reason for war in the first place? — Benkei

It wasn't the reason for this war because Ukraine had zero chance of joining NATO before Feb 2022. IF they had been in a process of joining, then one might surmise otherwise. But as it happened, Putin invaded for another reason.

What i am saying is this: after this war, Ukraine will probably seek to join both the EU and NATO. I further predict that their EU accession bid will be acceptable to both the EU and Russia. However, I am afraid the current Russian regime will not tolerate Ukraine joining NATO, and in any case will oppose it aggressively. Much more than a EU accession bid.

Among the leverage left to them, their conventional forces are already well diminished and will be more so at the end of the war. (assuming a Ukrainian victory, evidently) Therefore, their only leverage will be the mass of nuclear weapons they have. They might not detonate any, but they will threaten it, and that may be enough to deter or derail a NATO bid.

Such a threat is not readily available in the case of the EU, which is a trade group, not a military alliance. Putin cannot credibly threaten to nuke Ukraine if it joins the EU. But in case of NATO he can.

The risk of Ukraine joining NATO was what caused the current war but funny how for 400 pages you and others argued against that being the reason for the war and now all of a sudden it would be grounds for a nuclear attack? — Benkei

That's not what I am saying.

So far so good.

It's a fairly simple language and has many root words in common with English, because the last invasion of the French was never repelled. — unenlightened

Indeed, an estimated 41% of common, everyday English words are borrowed from old French, and often without much alteration in the word's writing. Table --> table; vase --> vase; fleur --> flower, etc. The other main source for English vocabulary is old German dialects, accounting for 38% of words in common use if memory serves, so these two sources are roughly on a par, with French words predominating only slightly.

As I always say, this is one big reason why English is such a powerful language: it comes not from one language that evolved overtime, but from two languages that merged in the 12th century after William's conquest.

It doesn't really matter, since if the new status quo doesn't in some way satisfy the Russians, it's going to lead to war again sooner or later. — Tzeentch

The purpose of the Ukrainian resistance is precisely to tell the Russians to mind their own busines. I trust it will work. Once they're finished losing this war, the Russians will be become war-adverse for at least a generation. Once bitten twice shy.

The only superiority Russia has over Ukraine is now nuclear. In terms of conventional warfare, Russia is losing its non-war against Ukraine, which is precisely why they try to score against Ukrainian civilians right now, and why they and their supporters wank on nukes so much: it's a form of porn, designed to give back a sense of power to the impotent.

So Ukraine needs not fear a future conventional war -- which they could well win. the only question, going forward, is: What Ukrainian behavior could possibly lead Russia to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine? I.e. which behavior should Ukraine avoid in order to avoid getting nuked by Russia?

For this reason, I predict Ukraine will join the EU but not NATO. Russia cannot possibly use nukes just to stop a nation from freely joining a trade group like the EU, but moves towards NATO membership could possibly trigger a nuclear response.

It says that there is an aspiration to democracy and human rights in the EU project, which conflicts with reality here or there. Note however that such an aspiration is just as hard to oppose formally by Russia as the aspiration to join a trade group. Putin cannot say: "I will nuke you if you aspire to human rights and democracy", not anymore than he can say "I will nuke you if you join the wrong free trade area". So in my view, Russian opposition to a potential Ukraine's EU membership -- if any -- cannot be expressed.

That's rather theoretical. Look at Orban from Hungary: he is aligned with Moscow, in disagreement with the rest of the block.

None whatsoever. And if I ... was the sort of person who cared what flag flew over my parliament — Isaac

It'd be about more than flag color. There's also the language. French is hard to learn.

I would be a monster to expect thousands of people to die bringing my personal preferences as to flag colour about. — Isaac

You are already a monster in my book due to your despicable posting manners and content here. Whatever you expect is not going to worsen that much.

, if moving a border makes the trains run better, move the border. — Isaac

So you'd have no objection to France taking over the UK? That would make trains run better alright....

The EU is not just a trading group. Countries give up a lot of autonomy to Brussels. — Tzeentch

Not really. It's all about having economic rules not too disparate so as to have a fair enough free trade areas.

both of those would probably be unacceptable to Russia. — Tzeentch

EU membership should be fine. There's no good reason to oppose it. "I'll nuke you if you join the wrong trading group" sounds rather absurd.

The idea of a group of people literally controlling a 'territory' is absurd (what are they going to to do control it's geography?). — Isaac

Why yes, people do control geography to a degree, by building infrastructure or destroying them. Think of how a dam affects the landscape. BTW, humans share that property with many other species, like beavers. Something people can do but beavers can't do, though, is name places, which represents a form of symbolic control over them. Hence Kyiv rather than Kiev.

You seem to be against the idea of a modern nation state. Fine with me but what's the alternative?

The United States will never agree to that, since the whole point of this crisis was to expand the US sphere of influence into Ukraine. A neutral Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and a nullification of billions of dollars spent over the course of at least a decade. — Tzeentch

I wasn't thinking of a neutral Ukraine, but of a country going the way its citizens want to go. EU accession would be on the table. Maybe even NATO membership, though that may be a step too far, IDK.

The choice has been between Russia or the United States to control Ukraine. — Tzeentch

What about Ukraine being under the control of Ukrainians? Is that totally out of question?

The idea Nuclear weapons have no military use is just insanely naive. — boethius

Nukes have their military use, which is to wipe out all mankind and give the earth a well-deserved break from us critters.

Talk me through how this process works. — Isaac

I suppose the same way as you do it, just better.

we've just got through demonstrating that to be bullshit. You can't provide a consistent criteria you use to judge who to trust. You dismissed RAND because of their connection to the military industrial complex yet 30 seconds on the internet tells us that ISW have exactly the same connections. — Isaac

ISW is of course staffed with US military types and they have their pro-US bias but they don't behave as a lobby. RAND on the other hand does, it channels more evidently (to me) the military-industrial complex's collective messages and interests than ISW.

This said, I haven't read ISW's assessment of the nuclear risk. I would think they care more about the safety of the nuclear plant at Zaporizzia (or whatever it's spelt) than about the tactical use of nukes.

In any case, the point of bias analysis is less to discard sources, than to interpret them correctly. To triangulate, IOW. It is generally unwise to discard a source entirely, unless it lies almost systematically. So I don't discount RAND, I just try to interpret its pronouncements at the light of its interests.

That's a restatement of what the narrative is, not an explanation of why you choose to believe it. — Isaac

I chose to believe it because it was reported to me by reporters I trust.

Also, Ukraine is not a victim. That's a category error. Ukraine is a country, it's not the sort of thing that can have victimhood.

"Ukraine" in this context should be taken as meaning "the Ukrainian people".

Why do you prefer the 'Russia bad, Ukraine good' narrative? Why do you interpret all evidence in that light? — Isaac

Because Russia is currently governed by a ruthless, aggressive dictatorship that attacked Ukraine and other countries such as Georgia. Ukraine is the victim here, and it aspires to be a liberal democracy. I find it natural to sympathize with the victim.