Jesus, I'm fighting my municipality already for 16 weeks to get approval to place solar panels. My house, build in 2012 along with the entire street, is in the zone of historic houses. So they are allowed to limit building permits if required to protect the cultural historic value. But in an exception in the rule, certain streets in the historic centre are exempted due to the year they were build - the 70s. So they employ build year as a proxy for cultural historic value and I thought that would be the end of it. Nevertheless, they refuse a permit. So bloody frustrating.

How many macho gays have started wars? I'm taking a closer look:



:chin: hmmm...

I think at least one.

In this thread I've earlier discussed the emergence of the extreme-right in Ukraine earlier, which happened actually prior to the 2014 revolution. And what is again dismissed is that after elections the far right lost. But that doesn't seem to matter. Some people go with the line of Putin that nazis have a say in present Zelensky lead administration. It's similar to accusing the Biden administration supporting neonazis because the previous president said good things about them (or declined to condemn them). — ssu

It's not dismissed but also not relevant as to when Putin annexed Crimea. Those elections were afterwards and the damage of fraternising with nationalist and neo-Nazis was already done; there was genuine worry in Crimea as Russians weren't Ukrainians in the eyes of the nationalist. And in a sense, there's still a Nazi problem; it doesn't seem like a good idea to arm them even if they like to position themselves as a "Christian taliban" to fight against the Russian invaders.

Even with Chechnya, Putin did start with differently: the focus was on stability and economic prosperity. That economic growth happened when oil prices went up. But what Putin failed in was to reorganize the economy and create genuine new growth. Coming from the class of robbers and putting his own people into positions of wealth and power didn't help when something new ought to have been done.

Hence I think his "imperial ambitions" started to gain track when the economy wasn't so fine anymore. When he couldn't provide more prosperity, then he started to provide more glory. And starting wars has always worked for him.

When you look at Putin's comments from when he rose to power and now, the rhetoric is amazingly different. — ssu

I agree domestic policy has been mostly absent or to the extent there was a policy it was counterproductive. What else is new though? The US is run by oligarchs as well, which is why it's so important Europe becomes a real alternative with multi-party representation instead of an effective lapdog for US foreign policy.

Just like Slobodan Milosevic was the protector of all Serbs in all of the former Yugoslav Republics. Now this actually would be totally natural, likely any country would hold some importance to people of it's own ethnicity. However with Russia, this is actively done by the intelligence services and used very aggressively. In a similar fashion as Milosevic protected the Serbs. — ssu

Please don't get met started on the Serbs and Kosovo. https://www.counterpunch.org/2008/02/18/nato-s-kosovo-colony/

Milosevic in 1987:

“we should not allow the misfortunes of people to be exploited by nationalists, whom every honest person must combat. We must not divide people between Serbs and Albanians, but rather we should separate, on the one hand, decent people who struggle for brotherhood, unity and ethnic equality, and, on the other hand, counter-revolutionaries and nationalists.

History is a tricky thing. The Serbs weren't the devils the West has ended up making them out to be.

And how conveniently you totally forget, likely on purpose, that the whole 2014 crisis happened because of a trade deal between EU and Ukraine and the part that EU played in this. Even the student demonstrations were called EuroMaidan with enthusiastic waving of EU flags (which I guess I've rarely if never seen in the EU itself). Hence it wasn't just about the alignment towards NATO, it was also the alignment towards the EU. — ssu

You're replying to a comment that specifically mentions that situtation. And of course I hadn't forgotten, it just doesn't change my view. That trade deal was rejected by the elected government in favour of a deal with the Russians, which the West then took as a good reason to foment demonstration by working closely together with Nazi-sympathisers and racist nationalists, which gave the perfect excuse for Putin to annex Crimea.

I suppose that if the US could've managed this without involving the Nazis and nationalists, things might have been different as the local support in Crimea might have been significantly lower.

So again, I think these issues are ancillary which is why I asked when was it said and who was it said to. I think it's analysing what is "sold" and who it's sold to goes a long way to telling us what's really at stake. As far as I know the artificiality and dreams of empire are recent and mostly domestic. If Putin had been waxing lyrical about the Russian empire since he came into power, I'd assess it differently. Now I just don't put much weight on it. He could have changed and this might be a big thing now but I see no indication in other facts, other than his speeches, that this is the case. You see this war as proof of it, I think the war can be sufficiently explained by different causes - mainly NATO expansion and then specifically this in the NATO Brussels Communiqué of 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".

I think there's a bigger problem here for the EU by the way. Aside from all the negative effects the sanctions have on Europe as well, the lessened security, we've just been pushed even more firmly into the US' sphere of influence. Considering the US' belligerence I don't feel comfortable being its ally. There will be a reckoning and we the Netherlands might be pulled along with it. Much how they felt obligated to help in Afghanistan and Iraq. Whether its Russia or hina, I'd rather not get involved.

:rofl:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/is-the-worlds-most-important-climate-legislation-about-to-die-in-us-congress

23 april, make it or break it I guess.

hooray. Congrats.

It's funny how you just assume I don't know all these things already. You left out the consideration that a successful resolution by a people of whom 50% of their relatives are Russian might cause problems in Russia for Putin as well, which is why it was also important for him to intervene. (I see you mention it later after I started typing this). But that seems like the only other reasonable strategic goal. And that revolution wouldn't be a thing if not for the meddling of the US in Ukraine to begin with.

But let's look at the artificiality and USSR our Russian empire claims. When did he make them and who was he addressing?

When he talks about "historical justice" and denies the strategic value of Crimea, who is he talking to? How likely is it for Putin to commit war efforts that inevitably will incur sanctions for a non-strategic goal? This from the guy who climbed from basically nothing to the President of Russia. We are now to believe he turned into an idiot?

The one consistent issue repeated and recognised for 3 decades: NATO expansion.

All the demands on the table from Russia before this war started were about: NATO expansion.

This war would not have happened but for: NATO expansion.

Other motives and strategic goals were ancillary at best.

Hard to say. The separatist war has been going on for 8 years now as well. So maybe this will simmer down to a long-lasting low intensity conflict. The West will lose interest when Will Smith slaps another comedian. Or the Russians are regrouping and will push again and circumstances will change again. And as defunct your view might look this week, maybe it's totally relevant again in another two weeks.

I wasn't arguing you shouldn't post it. I just think that focusing on whatever moral outrage this is supposed to garner in the West or wherever isn't what our governments should focus on. Imagine negotiations starting with both sides blaming and recounting all the war crimes they committed. That will quickly go nowhere. Indeed, I think we can comfortably assume more war crimes were and are being committed by Russia. But if so how should that factor in a ceasefire or a peace deal? I really think that for the immediate goals of ceasefires and peace, war crimes are irrelevant. Justice can wait; there are no statutory limitations on war crimes.

Raising minimum wage to 19 dollars might do the trick and split the GOP for good. That way not just Democrats benefit but actual US citizens.

Bound to happen of course as in any war. We can be shocked but not surprised. As I argued with respect to the atrocities committed by Russia: this is not what we should be focusing on as it doesn't contribute to any type of negotiation towards a ceasefire and eventually peace.

Ah, the tone police. Mind your manners or someone might be offended! I've been entirely civil, I've exactly called you an idiot once when you were trying to turn this into Idols where we were to choose between either shit or vomit, or the USA or Russia. "Who do you trust more with nukes?!"

I liked this one too.

What's "the issue" Baden and I were talking about? Maybe try to read instead of trying to score cheap points by deliberately misrepresenting what I say.

If atrocities were the issue no war could ever result in peace. But hey, don't let that stop you from emoting another useless contribution.

It's the reason why we can assume bad faith or stupidity on the part of the US.

I don't disagree with your assessment and not pretending there are no atrocities. But the problem in my view is the hawks in the guise of "moral knighthood" will use it as an excuse to stall and not engage in necessary talks to negotiate a ceasefire. The problem towards peace isn't the atrocities themselves, it's relevant parties using those atrocities as an excuse to do nothing.

There's also a sort of hubris in it where the powers that be are outraged on behalf of dead victims who no longer have a voice without any view on the living victims and what they want. It's like being outraged about abortion but not willing to spend money on taking care of children's education or orphanages.

Look, I appreciate often what you bring to the table from a historical perspective, but when this exact situation has been predicted for over 25 years as a result of NATO expansion I'm going to go with the theory that was actually accurate. I wrote a paper as part of my studies in 1998 predicting that treating Russia as a de facto enemy to be contained would be tantamount to a self-fulfilling prophecy, which is why I argued for economic integration before it got to that point. Even at 20 years I wasn't so blind as to think that NATO was purely a defensive organisation. Just like in chess, how you can attack without actually taking a single piece. And yes, I'm waaaaayyy more cynical about Western power since then. Colonial history is a big part of Dutch history and as an international human rights lawyer I'm well aware of all the abuses that happened in the past 30 years. Happy to share some book titles with you that got me this cynical about the exercise of Western power (with the US taking center stage).

Crimea was annexed because it contains Russian naval bases giving it access to the Mediterranean and I think the worry of Russians living thereseeing right sector ultra-nationalist and flags and symbols associated with Nazi collaborators in Maidan square honestly were worried. So an easy sell and it sold well, his approval ratings sky-rocketed.

I don't think Putin's musings on the artificiality of Ukraine inform actual policy. Just as his waxing lyrical about the USSR doesn't. I see nothing in circumstances and facts that reinforce this as important. But of course Putin is a habitual liar and we shouldn't believe anything he says except when it fits a specific narrative. You can't eat your cake and have it.

There's an immediate problem how to stop this current war. I find the atrocities committed by the Russians within the scope of what I expected. It's not fundamentally worse than Fallujah or Haditha and I think it's being exagerrated so the US/NATO can do the "we don't negotiate with war criminals" shtick so as to avoid any meaningful progress towards a ceasefire in the short term.

There's a long term problem that the EU and the US and UK need to negotiate a definitive demarcation with Russia which countries are simply off limits for joining NATO. And that's where you get the useless "sovereignty" worshipers and the "freedom" rhetoric that are the real barriers to a negotiated long term peace. You can't undermine rule-based international relations on the one hand and then demand other countries need to follow the rules you have no problem breaking. That will never result in peace.

I’m not sure the alternative to capitalism would have been any better. — Punshhh

I'd consider that a lack of imagination. Medieval peasants worked less than the average American and we're inexorably moving in that direction in Europe as well. By some measures feudalism would be preferable depending on what stage of capitalism you're living in.

Fuck those who are only against the wrongdoings of the US, who not only fall silent of other similar wrongdoings, but become actively apologists and defenders of those actions because they are perpetrated by those who oppose the US. Talk about accepting willingly the thinking that the enemies of my enemies being my friends. The inability to condemn both sides when they do bad things is so surprising and so telling. — ssu

Ah, we're back to the moral judgments again. Boring. I don't need to condemn Russia because 90% of the posters here already do it without any reservation and realisation of the broader picture. I

Crimea never would've become a part of Russia if the US hadn't been meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine for decades already. As warned about by Kissinger, the only way for Ukraine to survive was to pursue neutrality. The US made that impossible.

The hypocrisy is also annoying as if the US wouldn't do the same when China invited Mexico to join a military alliance, which is precisely why it had intervened in almost every southern American country during the cold War and there's still a blockade of Cuba going on.

Basically you're getting your moral panties in a twist for Russia doing the same that the West has done for centuries. How dare those barbarians!

But that doesn't matter at all, as you have pointed out that you don't care about Russian politics. — ssu

Also just to point out that what I said is that I don't give a shit about internal Russian politics when concerned about war, which is about international relations and foreign policy.

It's also funny how we managed to deal with Stalin, a veritable madman, and had him ally with us and how we should thank the diplomats and politicians they did or we'd be speaking German and sieg heiling when walking to work. But then Putin all of a sudden is so horrible that it's "we can never have peace when this butcher is in power". It's just amazing the shit people believe nowadays and how entire segments just uncritically go along with it. "yeah, yeah, he's a horrible criminal. Can't have peace. Regime change. We're the best, no blood on our hands." Fuck Europe for the pansy pussies they are and the US for being a warmongering genocidal empire.

I would prefer European hegemony in Europe without foreign military presence and maybe finally some equity and fairness across the world.

Don't ask me to eat shit and express a preference. ;-)

Which system got us the climate crisis?

EDIT: Or, how many millions were ground to death on the altar of capitalism and how many more?

That's a load of crap and you know it.

We see a huge consistency across the board for decades in what Russian governments have said for decades, the promises made in the 90s to Russia (not one inch to the East after German reunification) and how its interpretation of the Minsk II agreement is fully consistent with reaching this goal (eg. influence foreign policy via Donetsk and Luhansk).

On the other hand we have every military scholar telling you that Russian control of Ukraine is impossible. It would be another Afghanistan. So whatever is said about the artificiality of Ukraine is irrelevant because it's not a realistic goal.

It has always been and will continue to be the implied threat of NATO encirclement of Russia. That's the driver of conflict in this region and Russia has warned about it for decades.

Without NATO enlargement, the Russians likely would have military bases in the Baltic states again. — ssu

Aside from this being crystal ball theories I don't care to pursue I don't get why you're still under the impression that living within the imperial reach of one empire is better than another. It's obviously worse when two contest such reach in a given region as we seen now in Ukraine.

That's an interesting equivocation there. If you wanted to ask a question about Stalin and FDR, you should've asked that question. Or is this that game where you keep adding qualifiers to a question and move the goal posts until I agree with you? Yeah, not interested.

Also, check out when FDR was no longer president, when Stalin died and when NATO and the Warsaw Pact were established. Let me know the dates please.

@frank Book I got the numbers from: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/48835.American_Holocaust

Estimates for native americans killed through deliberate governmental action range from 95 million to 114 million in Canada and the US. Whether that was the US government or proxy governments for colonial powers is a bit academic. It does beat Mao although admittedly over a 500 year time period.

Whatchoo mean "we" kemosabe? — frank

I hope karmic retaliation doesn't do guilt by association but considering the agents it picks so far I'm not optimistic.Sorry.

This is a good question but one I can't really answer but only guess at.

Ukraine was torn between loyalty to the West and Russia to the East. It's politics have not been free of meddling for decades. So whether their wish to join was genuine or bought for, I don't know. I think Coca-Cola sells better than Vodka so maybe culturally there was a genuine preference to align with the West - or maybe that's just projection. But then that raises the question, why NATO? Why not just a partnership and cooperation agreement and association treaty at a later stage with the EU> So personally I think it was not Ukraine's idea to begin with but NATO/US and for various reasons Ukrainian politicians went along with it and NATO/US preferred the NATO route because the Ukrainian economy wasn't interesting but its military importance was (control of the Black Sea, bordering Russia, striking distance from Moscow).

What is of course curious is that all the warnings issued in the US and EU by political think tanks about expansion of NATO to the East imply that this was also known in Ukraine proper. I wonder about the motivations of politicians to vote in favour of a policy that would antagonise Russia and increase the likelihood of further military intervention and hardship for Ukrainians. Especially in light of this being implemented in their constitution after Georgia and Crimea was already annexed. It was clear Russia wasn't afraid to use military force to enforce its sphere of influence.

So, stupidity? Pride? Getting even? Bribed? All possible I suppose.

Haven't found anything on the net to give me a more informed view on this.

I just finished an interesting documentary where they argue that where science, profit and belief in superiority coincide, you have a particular volatile combination. So the US is build on the genocide of native americans (500 treaties signed and broken), millions displaced, forcibly converted, murdered and raped.

Most European wealth is build on the genocide and slavery of Africans. Belgium murdered 3,000,000 Congolese. The French, Dutch, English, Spanish and Portuguese had their slave trade. And almost all of them had colonies.

The Aztecs were original in a particular brand of religious sacrifice but a bunch of pussies compared to settler colonialism and all the crap that came with that. Europe then turned around and actually decided to kill their own (Jews) because, well only Aryans and Gentiles were superior (I gloss over the "Irish are descendants from monkeys but the English are Man" as a minor sidestory).

Considering the direction in which sheer quantities have developed over the centuries the next genocide where all three points mentioned in the first sentence coincide is going to be record-breaking. I'm just praying karma isn't a thing or we're both fucked.

In the sense they were both expressions of empire and the countries propping them up responsible for millions of death across the world. Sure. Pick your favourite mass murderer.

which I would disagree with. — ssu

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take.

Chomsky:

As has been understood for a long time, decades in fact, for Ukraine to join NATO would be rather like Mexico joining a China-run military alliance, hosting joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and maintaining weapons aimed at Washington. To insist on Mexico’s sovereign right to do so would surpass idiocy (and, fortunately, no one brings this up). Washington’s insistence on Ukraine’s sovereign right to join NATO is even worse, since it sets up an insurmountable barrier to a peaceful resolution of a crisis that is already a shocking crime and will soon become much worse unless resolved — by the negotiations that Washington refuses to join.

That’s quite apart from the comical spectacle of the posturing about sovereignty by the world’s leader in brazen contempt for the doctrine, ridiculed all over the Global South though the U.S. and the West in general maintain their impressive discipline and take the posturing seriously, or at least pretend to do so.

...

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. — Chomsky

Also, as a consideration, blockades used to be an act of war but that was in the time when there wasn't really something like foreign direct investment, which meant the trade balance was incredibly important. Now amending the system in such a way that capital flows are no longer possible, does it give rise to blockade?

Note that this has been previously argued in other cases, like the US blockade of Cuba.

China is a fucking hellhole, which is why I try not to spend any of my money there. I guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). That's the West in its entirety not just the US of A. So aside from the complicity in this specific war due to the proxy war that was going on well before that, we're complicit in undermining the rule-based order we thought we could finally agree on, which means nobody but the West feels the need to condemn Russia.

I think that's telling and says something about how much of that condemnation is a narrative that is not universally shared.

And while as a human rights lawyer I do strongly believe in a rule-based international order, I'm afraid it's too much of a "western" construct to survive long term.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia? — ssu

They know how to find their way to Europe just fine. Where was takecarebnb for them? It is racism. But not surprising the majority is blind to it when our legacy is genocide and slavery which reverberates into today's world both in how we "look at the other", define ourselves as righteous and breach the rules we claim others should adhere to. I mean the US entered into 500 treaties with indigenuous native americans and broke them all and when Russia says "pay in rubles" it's "that's a breach of treaty!".

The US breaks the UN Charter when it suits them. They break their own laws when it suits them. This trust in "Western governments" as some force of good is just complete bullshit. All governments are shit and some are just less shit than others. Democracy and fairness are a constant struggle, requires an engaged populace and access to information. The latter is quickly deteriorating in the West and engagement with people who think differently is pretty much down the drain.

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance. Reap what you sow.

Speaking of breaking treaties. Guess who is militarising space due to changes in policies? You get two tries!

Another attempt at cheap point scoring and you suck at it. I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. I do care about what you think and what disturbs you. I just happen to think you've got a limited view of relevant circumstances are deeply emerged in the western holistic view of general benevolence and being on the right side of history etc.

Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then.

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white.

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? Tugging at my moral convictions just shows how tribal your own convictions are.

Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. ;-)

Thanks. Weirdly enough that didn't show on their own web page in the overview but does come up if you approach it by region/country here: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/russia/

In any case, point remains we should've gone further as was argued by several politicians early 2000 to include Russia in "the West". Instead we opted for geopolitical steps and the "encirclement" of Russia against promises made: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

What policy are you talking about? — ssu

See above. The bait and switch policy and flatly lying. Of course, the Russians should've gotten it in writing.

Sure, let's celebrate the huge barrier to entry to start new social media. :sad:

uhm... https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

Aside from the fact that I said "association agreement" and not "PCA" and said "90s" and not "naughts", where exactly is it?

I think it's telling it's just the West saying all these things about Putin and Russia, What's ther rest of the world doing? South-America is shaking its head in disbelief because they smell the hypocritical bullshit from miles away. "Sovereignty, sovereignty" cried the USA. "When did that ever matter to you when pursuing regime change in our countries?". India doesn't commit to condemning the war other than reiterating platitudes it's committed to the UN charter.

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked.

We all know the answer don't we? This is to say, we have no moral standing to condemn Russia, we only have power and it's being exercised to cow the Russians into submission.

Oil-producing countries are not upping production. E.g., they are following through on the treaty obligations they have with Russia which is indirect support of Russia or at least not a condemnation.

The ease with which everybody here just parrots EU, NATO and US talking points is just amazing. The world doesn't revolve around Europe; pay attention to all these different views.