A longer view of how we got here:

When such an opportunity [for Russian democracy] was available, it was subverted not by Putin and his kleptocratic milieu, but by the West. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union 30 years ago, American economic advisers convinced Russia’s leaders to focus on economic reforms and put democracy on the backburner – where Putin could easily extinguish it when the time came. This is no trivial historical contingency. Had Russia become a democracy, there would have been no need to talk about NATO and its eastward expansion, no invasion of Ukraine, and no debates about whether the West owes Russia’s civilization greater respect. (As a German, I recoil at that last proposition, which has clear echoes of Hitler and his self-proclaimed leadership over a “civilization.”)

...Surrounded by a small group of Russian reformers and Western advisers, Yeltsin used this unique historical moment to launch an unprecedented program of economic “shock therapy.” Prices were liberalized, borders were opened, and rapid privatization began – all by presidential decree. Nobody in Yeltsin’s circle bothered to ask whether this was what Russia’s citizens wanted. And nobody paused to consider that Russians might first want a chance to develop a sound constitutional foundation for their country, or to express through an election their preference for who should govern them.

The reformers and their Western advisers simply decided – and then insisted – that market reforms should precede constitutional reforms. Democratic niceties would delay or even undermine economic policymaking. Only by moving fast – cutting the dog’s tail with one blow of the ax – would Russia be put on a path to economic prosperity and the Communists be kept out of power for good. With radical market reforms, the Russian people would see tangible returns and become enamored with democracy automatically. It was not to be.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/1990s-shock-therapy-set-stage-for-russian-authoritarianism-by-katharina-pistor-2022-02

Incidentally this is effectively the same shit that the EU does to countries today, who come under its ambit.

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. — Isaac

It doesn't matter if they were actually threatened, it doesn't matter the reasons. Maybe they wanted to be part of a defensive alliance just to be secure for any possible future conflict. There are a large number of reasons for them joining, neither warrants blame on them for any actions by others (Russia).

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? — Isaac

You are the one making the Poland argument. Their reason could be general security. I'm making the analogy based on the guilt blaming of NATO in today's conflict with Russia. Get in the game and stop steering this into some other argument that is irrelevant.

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

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? The fact is that the decision of an independent nation to increase security and defense is not another nation's fucking business as long as that action doesn't act as a direct and concrete threat.

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

Your analogy seems flawed. — Isaac

You intentionally stupify yourself in order to defend yourself against me asking for logic to you blaming NATO for Putin's actions.

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

Anyone who doesn't think world politics is a video game. — StreetlightX

But this is about blaming NATO for what Putin is doing. Stop fucking around and answer me what threats they've actually done. What Russia "feels" is a threat can only warrant them to build up their own defense, but acting out aggression and invading others or conducting actual military threats based on their "feeling" does not warrant NATO to be blamed for Russia's offensive acts.

You all don't seem to understand the difference between defence and offense, or that "building defense" is not the same as "invading another country" or "making actual military threats towards another nation"

Show some logic on a philosophy forum. Your reasoning fits more on Reddit than here. If I ask for logic in your reasoning, then provide it, and don't spin off in other directions distracting from the fact that there's no logic to your conclusions.

Deduce why NATO is to blame for Putin's actions. Simple fucking request here. I've given you enough of my time to do it and yet there's nothing by noise.

But this is about blaming NATO for what Putin is doing. — Christoffer

No, this is about blaming NATO for what NATO has done. Again, if you feel the need to choose a team, that's your problem.

You all don't seem to understand the difference between defence and offense — Christoffer

You don't seem to understand that these words are meaningless in the real world where these words are abstractions that only apply to the latest Nintendo release.

No, this is about blaming NATO for what NATO has done. Again, if you feel the need to choose a team, that's your problem. — StreetlightX

What has NATO done? What are you blaming NATO for? Answer already

You don't seem to understand that these words are meaningless in the real world and this is not a video game. — StreetlightX

So building a defense within your own nation is considered an offensive act warranting getting offensive acts of invasion or threats of violence against you? That's your logic, right? Because that's what Sweden is experiencing right now. If we join NATO, we will be blamed for Putin invading us or some other nation.

EXPLAIN YOUR LOGIC PLEASE

Incidentally this is effectively the same shit that the EU does to countries today, who come under its ambit. — StreetlightX

I wonder why them countries keep applying to EU membership all the time, as if it was a good thing to trade with Europe. Little do they know that Brussels is the tower of Mordor.

Mm, and I wonder why the UK left and Greece and Spain are now debtors prisons and fascism is on the rise across the continent.

So building a defense within your own nation is considered an offensive act warranting getting offensive acts of invasion or threats of violence against you? That's your logic, right? — Christoffer

No I literally rejected the very terms in which you framed the problem, so maybe before we get to 'logic' we can ask if you are capable of literacy first. Baby steps.

The UK left because of their racism. Good riddance to then, their heart was never in it. And if other countries want to leave the Union, they are most welcome. Less free wheelers is good for a team.

Greece's collective ass was saved by Europe. They know it. The Greeks are not leaving the EU.

Where are you from?

their heart was never in it. — Olivier5

Because they knew from the beginning how utterly stupid and economically insane the idea of monetary union was to begin with.

Greece's collective ass was saved by Europe — Olivier5

Loooooooool. Make another joke.

Where are you from?

Irreverent.

Irreverent — StreetlightX

You want more reverence? Let me see what I can do.

May I ask, your appropriately condescending highness, which nation has had the privilege of welcoming your splendid presence in its midst?

Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions. — Christoffer

Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways.

Russia's "feelings" do not matter in this. — Christoffer

"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings.

Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that... — StreetlightX

This is a piss poor argument. If I stand up to the bully, (or the extortionist for that matter) and do the opposite of what he requests, and he goes off to torture my friends and family, obviously, you can say that I might have handled the situation better (incapacitate the bully?) but you cannot blame me for the ensuing actions of the bully. The bully is fundamentally unpredictable, making his actions irrational.

The reformers and their Western advisers simply decided – and then insisted – that market reforms should precede constitutional reforms.

Double benefit here, the west gets freedom to exploit the resources, and whatever money is paid for the resources is pocketed by a few individuals, instead of a properly organized governance. Win, win, until you consider everyone else affected.

Haha, nice. Lots of them, since you asked so nicely.

Have you ever lived in Europe, by any chance?

Stay on-topic please, or just come out with a point, if you have one.

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.

Have a little patience. Also, @jamalrob, you may wish to clarify if you are participating in the discussion as a contributor or as a referee. The two roles are not compatible.

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. — Isaac

Those who have built empires have not been madmen. Some perhaps have been, but not all.

What counts is that one is against the idea of imperialism, that the larger and stronger has the right to force the weaker and to annex territory, to subjugate and perhaps to assimilate them. And not have a fixation on just one actor that has imperialist tendencies.

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.

It would be like explaining WW2 by talking only about the war crimes that the Western allies did. The terror bombing of Germany like Dresden, the fire bombing of Japanese cities like Tokyo, the use of nuclear weapons against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the actions of Moroccan goumiers in Italy, all the incidents were POWs were shot by various Western allied units.

And then not only leaving it with that, but accusing anyone daring to even refer that "Wait a minute, this discussion is about WW2. The Axis side did warcrimes too, like starting with the Holocaust." that they portray the Western allies as knights in shining armor. Because nobody is denying those actions above.

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)

No I literally rejected the very terms in which you framed the problem, so maybe before we get to 'logic' we can ask if you are capable of literacy first. Baby steps. — StreetlightX

How is that in any shape or form not in line with the problem?

Here's baby steps for your baby brain:

1. NATO is a defensive alliance that is made up of a union of nations that help each other if one nation gets attacked.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide a logical argument for why this isn't the case.

2. NATO's expansion is based on a US agenda.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide evidence to how this works and how all other nations doesn't have the same power as US within NATO.

3. NATO's expansion has never been through any attack on anyone's border.

Regarded as true. If false, please provide example.

4. NATO has never directly attacked Russia or threatened Russia.

Regarded as true. If false provide evidence that they have threatened or attacked Russia.

5. NATO expansion is based primarily on a nation's will to join NATO. NATO doesn't force anyone to join.

Regarded as true. If false, provide an example of an event where NATO forced someone.

6. A nation joining NATO is an active and direct threat against Russia.

Regarded as false. If true, provide a logical argument for how joining NATO is the same as threatening Russia.

7. NATO has equal blame for Putin's actions.

Regarded as false. If true, please provide a logical and rational argument for how that is true.

Each answer can be started with true or false, then provide further elaboration. But I predict that you will ignore this and just tell me how stupid I am, because that is the level at which you operate. Like a baby.


Once again. Putin and Russia feeling a perceived threat from NATO does not make an act of aggression, invasion, war or direct military threats by Putin and Russia something to blame NATO for. As long as NATO hasn't threatened to invade Russia, there is no actual threat made by NATO, therefore there is no act by Russia that NATO can be blamed for. A defensive build-up of military defensive forces in nations Russia has no control over (independent free nations) is not the same as threatening Russia. The only viable threat through this would be if there was an example of NATO actively attacking another nation without being attacked first, essentially breaking the defense protocol.

Russia, Putin, is acting by his own hand. His actions, invasion, war, threats etc. is something he and Russia alone are responsible for, not NATO. If you want to blame NATO, then you need to establish a clear threat towards Russia, not what the manchild Putin feels is the case.

Greece and Spain are now debtors prisons and fascism is on the rise across the continent. — StreetlightX

No. You are just obsessed of classify everything in economics and GDP. Did you know the French GDP is more indebted that Spain's one?
You don't know anything about my country and do not speak please.
But, as @jamalrob said, it is better to stay in the topic.

Sorry.

Scroll back through the thread. In what way have those blaming the US/NATO/Europe attempted to make the conversation only about that? — Isaac

And just when have I denied that NATO expansion isn't one reason for Putin to attack?

All I've tried to say, that it wasn't the only reason for this war. You cannot explain it just by that. If you get that, fine, let's move on.

Putin would have tried to control, subjugate and annex Ukraine even without any NATO enlargement. It would have been just far more easier then. And without any NATO, any EU, Russia would talk to many countries on a bilateral basis like they did to us during the Cold War.

Human feelings are extremely complex and difficult to decipher, from observation of a person's actions. That's why psychology is borderline science. And, in psychology the patient is supposed to try and make one's feeling known to the psychologist. When an individual intentionally hides one's feelings, the acts are twisted around multiple motives, so psychological problems are often referred to as a "complex". Jealousy for example manifests itself in very strange ways. — Metaphysician Undercover

Neither warrants blame on NATO. The argument is not about whether Putin feels the need to act, but who's to blame for his acts. Is blaming NATO for his actions logical? Do they have guilt in what is happening or are the actions Putin's? If NATO is to blame, how is that so? What warrants them equal blame? No one seem to answer me this.

"Feelings" are attributable to individual human beings, very unique and particular to the individual, as they are tied up within the highly structured and organized chemical system within the human being. It makes absolutely no sense to say that an entity like "Russia" has feelings. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm sorry, Putin.

Greece and Spain are now debtors prisons and fascism is on the rise across the continent.
— StreetlightX

No. You are just obsessed of classify everything in economics and GDP. Did you know the French GDP is more indebted that Spain's one?
You don't know anything about my country and do not speak please.
But, as jamalrob said, it is better to stay in the topic. — javi2541997

It's better when it suits him, I guess.

For info, my point questioning @StreetlightX was to try and show that he is grossly misinformed about Europe. On the topic of the EU, he comes across as a FAUX News consumer.

But I still love my country, and I relish its cultural output--not all of it uniformly. Much of American culture was imported from elsewhere--like coffee which has never been grown here. Coffee is a very good thing. — Bitter Crank

Sounds like you've done some serious research on the goodness of coffee. :smile:

Tobacco, on the other hand, seems to be less health-promoting ....

But I agree that compared to some other countries, American culture isn't entirely bad. If Americans somehow managed to be more independent of Wall Street and refrained from replacing European culture with that of America's lower social strata, it might be even better.

It's the xenophobia involved in nationalism that I object to, as well as the many fake nationalistic histories in currency right now. The many lies underlying the nation state, everywhere. — Olivier5

I agree. Unfortunately, the nation state seems to be a necessity in organizing the world, unless we want an amorphous mass of humanity ruled from Washington or New York.

And as the state is a political construct, this involves a narrative or "foundation myth" that, almost inevitably (like all things in politics), will contain counterfactual elements. Even in their personal life, people tend to tell myths, or lies, to themselves and to others.

Incidentally, even Ukrainians don't seem to be entirely blameless:

Ukraine Acknowledges Racist Treatment Of Africans Fleeing Russian Invasion - HuffPost

During a discussion on BLM last year I asked a group of students from the region about the public attitude to blacks in their country. I won't say which country, but the answer wasn't particularly positive.

in previous episodes Aimen Dean dismisses the inside job conspiracy theory about the Russian apartment bombings, and he's a person who knows a lot about the North Caucasian jihad. — jamalrob

Even in logical terms, Kirill Pankratov and others have argued (1) that the government did not need any additional justification to wage war on Chechnya, given the kidnappings and the invasion of Dagestan, and (2) that the operation involved too many people for the government to have been able to keep it secret.

In any case, there is no evidence and IMO speculation is just waste of time. Unfortunately, some are trying to blame everything on Russia and Putin. After all, there is an information and media war going on as we speak and some of the stuff we’re being told is simply fake news.

Unfortunately, the nation state seems to be a necessity in organizing the world, unless we want an amorphous mass of humanity ruled from Washington or New York.

And as the state is a political construct, this involves a narrative or "foundation myth" that, almost inevitably (like all things in politics), will contain counterfactual elements. Even in their personal life, people tend to tell myths, or lies, to themselves and to others. — Apollodorus

Okay, that's interesting. Do all polities need a foundational lie? I'm not against the nation state as a concept, but it's almost impossible to implement. So yes, there might be a need to hide the truth to shore up legitimacy. Gona chew on this.

"Liberal democracy" literally sustains itself off the back of corrupt thugs like Putin — StreetlightX

As I said, in dark moments I wonder if liberal democracy (without scare quotes) is a sham, there is no social contract, and the whole enterprise is propped up by the threat of violence. I think this is essentially the worldview of Trumpists. It's a world in which everyone is out to exploit everyone else and you can't even trust your immediate family, friends and co-workers.* Even if they're wrong to believe this is just "the way it is", they can make it so by behaving as if it is true.

There are tens of millions of Americans who will tell you that gun rights are the most important rights because they are the guarantor of the others. That sounds like failure to me.

These people believe that all social control is ultimately backed by the threat of violence. But even if that's true (and I doubt it), so long as the masters rely on other means of control, there's a chance of finding a way of opposing them. People strike, protest, organize, withhold rent, and so on -- but you can't do any of that with a bullet in your head. Putin has made it clear that he has no reservations about just having you killed if you're in his way. Not manipulating you into buying a new car; not cutting your hours if you make a stink with HR; not raising the interest rate on your credit card debt a few percent; just having you killed.


History is what it is, so the history of liberal capitalism is entangled with something else that might have played out much the same even under very different sorts of political economy: oil. It is surely no coincidence that a number of repressive regimes sit on top of oil fields. It's not only American and European oil barons who put up with these thugs: it's all of modern civilization, powered by fossil fuels, and we might very well have made the same deal with the devil even if no one were making obscene profits by doing so.


*

Incidentally this is effectively the same shit that the EU does to countries today, who come under its ambit. — StreetlightX

Same shit different outcomes?

And notice how those ex-Soviet countries in the EU (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) have performed against their former Soviet counterparts:

Note the position of Ukraine.