You have a long memory….

The dying will be done by Russians and Ukrainians, if it comes to that. — ssu

There's another pending death: that of the Ukrainian language. I wonder if Putin will try to finish that job.

So he is now caught in a situation where he doesn’t want to launch the invasion but also doesn’t want to be seen to back down. — Wayfarer

It wouldn't actually be so hard. A victorious speech in front of Russian soldiers and an Iskander-missile launch vehicle behind him and he can declare that NATO has backed down. Because, let's think about this, would Biden or especially the Germans have the stomach to focus on Ukraine when trainloads of soldiers and equipment is withdrawn from the border? Nope. They would sigh relief, pat themselves on the back of job well done and forget more quickly the issue than we would forget this thread.

Besides, let's remember that the first troop surge of forces happened early last year. A lot of the equipment has been parked on the border for a year. Now it's just an issue of organization, that you permanently rotate troops to the Ukrainian border and train them there. It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger.

The ~13,000-odd casualties of the already-existing Ukraine conflict ought not to be forgotten. My understanding is that this conflict is wholly and solely a consequence of Russia’s territorial incursions - would I be wrong in thinking that? — Wayfarer

Oh but they are forgotten. Or it's a statistic that doesn't bother people. Putin can use the deep and longstanding skepticism in the West about the Western (US) intentions and objectives. Hence as you said, the idea that Putin and Russia is the victim and NATO basically the aggressor here can be easily accepted. Let's say even I understood a lot more Russia's argumentation when the Kosovo War happened, when actually the US-Russian relationship first soured. But annexing Crimea, that is quite different.

That's on the to do -list at number 22 if Putin would annex Ukraine.

There's also political maneuvering going around, with the US never wanting a lack of enemies - soon after the disaster in Afghanistan. And Putin is wanting to shift attention away from pretty bad conditions in Russia do to the COVID pandemic and rising prices. — Manuel

It would be nice if it was that simple. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is.

Prices may be rising in Russia, but they are also rising elsewhere, especially oil and gas prices. And this is what it really is about.

The fact is that Russia is a major exporter of oil and gas to Europe.

This means three things:

1. America would prefer Europe to buy American oil and gas.

2. Europe would prefer to control Russia’s oil and gas (or at least prices) by incorporating Russia into the European Union (EU).

3. If Russia loses a war with NATO and its regime is toppled, US and UK energy corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources. And, possibly, China, if China remains neutral or sides with NATO.

The EU already tried to incorporate Russia in the 90’s. It didn’t succeed because of opposition from the Putin government. But the EU and NATO have been constantly expanding and the only logical conclusion to permanent expansion is the incorporation of Russia and the resulting control over Russian resources.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. So, why are these two countries leading the crusade against Russia, with some even calling for regime change?

There are many factors, of which I don't know of, but you bring up which are important.

It's not unlike Venezuela in some respects. Why do major powers care about Venezuela so much and not Colombia? They rabble on and on about "communism", but it's about oil. No oil, no big power would care about Venezuela.

If we think about it, Ukraine has nothing to do with the North Atlantic or NATO, and Russian occupation or control of Ukraine poses absolutely no threat to the national security of America or Britain. So, why are these two countries leading the crusade against Russia, with some even calling for regime change? — Apollodorus

Exactly right. What's the big threat? For Ukraine, I can understand the fear. But to think that Russia is going to pose any kind of military threat to the West, is incoherent at best.

If Russia loses a war with NATO and its regime is toppled, US and UK energy corporations will be the first to get their hands on Russian resources. And, possibly, China, if China remains neutral or sides with NATO. — Apollodorus

Well, here is my fear. How long could a war last between Russia and NATO before nukes are used? It's not as if Russia can beat NATO and would stand for mass causality loss and national humiliation.

It will be interesting to see if China shifts its views, as the situation in Taiwan is pretty bad too. Not as bad as Ukraine right now, but not good.

It's costly, but it would be possible. So in the end (and let's hope for it) all this can become a nothingburger. — ssu

I suppose, as Russia has been insisting all along that it isn't preparing for an invasion, if there is no invasion it will be able to say 'See? Western hysteria all along. These maneuvers are just business as usual.'

It's not unlike Venezuela in some respects. Why do major powers care about Venezuela so much and not Colombia? They rabble on and on about "communism", but it's about oil. No oil, no big power would care about Venezuela. — Manuel

Absolutely correct. Venezuela, Iraq, and many other places ...

We know that the "Ukraine crisis" is not happening in a geopolitical vacuum, because there was US opposition to Russia building a gas pipeline to Europe already in the 80's under Reagan.

At the time there was US opposition because "Russia was communist", now it's because "Putin is a dictator". But China's Xi is a dictator, too (as well as a communist) so why not topple him first? Because China hasn't got oil and because US corporations have made large investments in China (which is why China has become a regional power and is now on the way to becoming a global power)!

So, communist or not, America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars that US energy corporations could pocket while at the same time putting up oil and gas prices at home. A nice double profit for the monopolist clique, in other words.

And we know (1) that NATO has been constantly expanding since its formation and (2) that the EU has been equally expanding and even tried to incorporate Russia. See the 1997 EU–Russia Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), that included financial, economic, and cultural cooperation as well as political dialogue, and expressly aimed to “provide an appropriate framework for the gradual integration between Russia and a wider area of cooperation in Europe”.

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan.

So Putin may be a kind of dictator, but I think it is fair to say that he is defending Russia's interests (as well as his own). In any case, it is wrong to say that it's got nothing to do with oil and gas.

As I pointed out on the other thread, what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO followed by scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for financial assistance or military “protection”.

And that's how an international crisis leading to military intervention and "regime change" happens. But if people are fixated on Ukraine which is what the US-UK propaganda and disinformation is trying to achieve, then they are completely oblivious of what is really happening in the world and why .... :smile:

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. What EU membership usually means for a country like Ukraine is that millions will emigrate to Germany, France, and other EU countries with stronger economies whilst its own economy will be taken over by multinational (mainly Anglo-American) corporations.

If Putin hadn't come to power in 1999, Russia would now be part of the EU and do as ordered by Brussels, whilst its vast resources (oil, gas, aluminium, gold, etc.) would be exploited by the likes of American Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, and others that are already in next-door Kazakhstan. — Apollodorus

I agree. There really are human rights concerns, but the real engine behind it is the need to crack Russia open for neoliberal exploitation. The notion that naive idealism is up against realpolitik here is overlooking this.

So, communist or not, America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars that US energy corporations could pocket while at the same time putting up oil and gas prices at home. A nice double profit for the monopolist clique, in other words. — Apollodorus

Absolutely. Though there's the extra factor of "nationalistic pride", that's just present in all confrontations between power states. It's natural, I suppose, but it's very dangerous. Sure, US moneyed interests want a bigger stake of the profits, but there's also the "you do what we say" element. Again, applies to all powerful states, in varying degrees.

So Putin may be a kind of dictator, but I think it is fair to say that he is defending Russia's interests (as well as his own). In any case, it is wrong to say that it's got nothing to do with oil and gas.

As I pointed out on the other thread, what tends to happen is that certain interest groups in America or Britain decide to label someone “enemy”, after which they mobilize NATO followed by scores of smaller countries that depend on the bigger guys for financial assistance or military “protection”. — Apollodorus

That's the way to view conflicts, I think. From the perspective of each states' elite interests. That's what drives foreign policy.

And what's ironic or strange or whatever word you want to use, is that, as soon as one enemy is dealt with or ignored, a new one pops up. Remember Obama making fun of Romney in 2012 for saying that he was focusing too much on Russia and was "living in the Cold War era". How quickly did those comments sour.

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. What EU membership usually means for a country like Ukraine is that millions will emigrate to Germany, France, and other EU countries with stronger economies whilst its own economy will be taken over by multinational (mainly Anglo-American) corporations. — Apollodorus

Yeah, they have it very tough. It's not as if the EU is paradise, as an institution. Better than Russia, sure, but it's far from being ideal.

It's hard to say what Ukraine should do, in terms of how to compromise and how to have some element of autonomy, which they should have. Not an enviable position to be in.

America objects all the same to Russia selling gas and oil to Europe because it's about billions of dollars — Apollodorus

Russia has plenty of oil and gas to sell to anyone who pays. Isn't the US objection really about the many billions of euros that are flowing back up the pipe to arm Russia rather than about the already low US oil and gas prices?

certain interest groups in America or Britain — Apollodorus

You need to name those 'certain interests' if you want to be taken seriously. The oil companies are owned by a million stock holders

You need to name those 'certain interests' if you want to be taken seriously. The oil companies are owned by a million stock holders — magritte

So, what exactly are you suggesting?

Are you seriously arguing that if (a) a corporation has "a million stockholders" (which would need to be established in the first instance) then (b) it has neither interests nor influence on foreign or domestic policy?

The fact is that both Atlanticism and NATO have represented oil (and banking) interests from the start.

Atlanticism was a joint project of America, Canada, and England, designed to represent oil interests. The Atlanticist Movement was headed by Paul Cravath who was an employee of Standard Oil.

The creation of NATO was suggested at the 1945 UN Conference on International Organization in San Francisco by Nelson Rockefeller who together with other Rockefeller men was advising Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr.

So let’s not pretend that oil interests have no influence on US foreign policy or that they would have nothing to gain from selling oil and gas to Europe at higher prices.

In fact, they are at it already:

U.S. LNG Cargoes Flock To Europe Amid Record-High Gas Prices

That's the way to view conflicts, I think. From the perspective of each states' elite interests. That's what drives foreign policy. — Manuel

Exactly. And the states that are most powerful (economically and militarily or both) dominate international relations either on their own or with the assistance of their satellites, as the case may be in a given situation.

US, UK, OZ, NZ, and CANADA is one such international group that only needs to put pressure on Germany and other European puppets to get a "majority" in all the key international organizations and dictate world policy. And that's called "freedom and democracy" ..... :grin:

I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. The EU is relatively easy to join but almost impossible to leave as shown by the case of Britain. It would be much more difficult for countries that are economically weaker like Ukraine. They would have to turn to China or other countries with a strong economy and sooner or later lose their independence anyway.

As regards Ukraine, its economic situation isn't exactly brilliant, so it is doubtful that it would be any worse under Russian control. - I think Ukraine should stay out of the EU and NATO as by joining them not only it puts itself in the anti-Russian camp but it loses its own freedom in the process. — Apollodorus

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. The Ukrainians, or those protesting Belarussians (that are forgotten now) obviously could see how joining the EU has made the Baltic States and Eastern Europe far more prosperous. From the name Euromaidan this should be obvious. Their demands for democracy weren't some CIA covert operation and in Ukraine we have seen how the Ukrainians have voted in new political parties in elections hoping for improvement. But for some reason, for them, and of course for the Russians, the firm grip of a president for life seems to be the "rational", obvious and acceptable choice. Contrary to being part of the West, which would be so bad.

At least I remember that @the Opposite here has been quite consistent in keeping up the discussion about Hong Kong protests or the protests in Belarus earlier. I would suppose that kind of thinking would prevail in a Philosophy Forum, not acceptance and understanding of the views of a President-for-life who leads a kleptocracy made up of KGB spooks and spies.

Wasn't NATO more like a response to the second world war? So it's purpose is to deter any rogue state from becoming too aggressive. Therefore it has no particular enemy, as its mandate is to prevent the arising of an enemy. So if there becomes a particular enemy it has failed in its mandate. — Metaphysician Undercover

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about:

Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

Now you might ask, what's the point if we have such organizations as OSCE? Well, do notice that NATO puts the militaries to work together. They train together, they make their plans together, they simply know each other. That's a huge thing when you consider how hostile nations can be in the end to each other. For example, with the case of Greece and Turkey it's obvious that NATO membership has refrained these two countries from going to war. Once you have such alliance, the countries militaries won't be making war plans for hypothetical wars between them, just like the US had warplans to fight the United Kingdom after WW1 (War Plan Red).

It really should be hammered in that NATO is the security policy option for West European countries. Just to look at NATO as a tool of the US isn't the total picture. It's not similar to the Warsaw Pact: NATO isn't going into it's own member states to crush popular uprisings.

In the West, NATO enlargement wasn't done because of Russia. Russia was...past, an old story. People selectively forget how NATO was looking for a new mission, that article 5 wasn't so important and how there was talk about Russia joining NATO. The above articles (1 and 2) were really thought to be the important thing for the countries emerging from behind the Iron Curtain not to go the path Armenia and Azerbaijan have gone (actually even under the last moments of the Soviet Union). At least until now, NATO members haven't gone to war with each other.

Article 5 only came important after the annexation of Crimea. But then, you might believe Vladimir Putin, who tells a different story.

@swstephe last online 2 hours ago after a 5 year absence... Spooky.

:yikes:

You’re beacon of sanity in a very confused world.

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans.

Western liberals like to harp on about 'respecting sovereignty', right before they economically devestate a country to turn them into a financial fiefdom for transnational corporations. But Russia Bad and Very Scary oooooo. Ukraine's economy is even worse than the Greeks, who have been collectively shat on by "the West" in a way that a Russian invasion couldn't even match if they tried. But I'm sure they will treat Ukraine much better because they are the Good Guys!

Lol I'm sure Ukraine can't wait to be subjected to more IMF 'structual adjustment' and austerity and have whatever democracy they do have utterly demolished and controlled by a bunch of neolib bureaucrats in Brussels. Can't wait to make Ukraine another factory for my shoes as they utterly destroy workers rights so they can join enlightened Europeans. — StreetlightX

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low. EU countries close to Ukraine have higher minimum wages than in Ukraine (220 USD per month) and the average salary there is a bit over 800 dollars. In Poland average salary is 1800 dollars (in the US close to 6000).

Yet do notice the absence of any enthusiasm from the EU for Ukraine to join the union. Or any talk about it. Even the whole 2014 mess was about only a trade deal between EU and Ukraine.

And do notice that Turkey has SINCE 1987 applied to join the EU and still is viewed as a candidate country even if this is quite remote now and time has truly passed. Other candidate countries are Albania, North Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia. Potential candidates are Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosovo (Iceland has requested not to be regarded as a candidate country, so I guess it has opted to join the exclusive club of European non-EU countries).

In fact, especially after 2014, but even before that Ukraine not joining NATO could have been avoided as all NATO members have together agree on the membership. Some members could have simply dragged their feet, just like with Turkey's EU bid, and Putin would have been a respected leader in European eyes. But that's not an option anymore.

It hasn't failed in its mandate. Do note what NATO's first and second Article are about: — ssu

I agree with what you are saying. My post was directed at Manuel who implied that Russia was the "enemy", and NATO was formed for the purpose of containing this enemy. Notice in the articles you've quoted. the mandate is international "peace", and I said if there becomes a particular "enemy" their mandate has failed.

What is important is the meaning of "enemy". Any rhetoric which refers to a particular entity as "the enemy" implies hostility toward that entity. And open hostility toward another state is not consistent with international peace.

Economic sanctions are a strategic tool developed under this mandate of "peace". They are applied without declaring war, and without declaring an enemy. They seem to be meant like a sort of punishment, like a parent would punish a child, banished to their room, grounded, no dessert. You punish your child without thinking of them as the enemy. But when you are on the receiving end of the punishment, you may interpret the punishment as a hostile act, and apprehend the inflictor as the enemy. With a harsh punishment the child might wish the parent dead, but at the same time, the deeper relationship of dependency is usually recognized. So in the application of such sanctions the assumed "peace" is not necessarily two-way, it may only be from the perspective of the one side. That this is just an illusion of peace has been demonstrated in the past by acts of guerilla warfare and terrorism.

One can be cynical, but I just am amazed how in their criticism of the US some people are outright contemptuous and how much they show disdain and disregard for others when it comes to things like their rights and their hopes of economic prosperity. — ssu

Well, your pro-EU and anti-Russia stance is well-known, which isn't in the least surprising coming from someone from Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans, and that thinks that it is about to be swallowed up by the "bad Russian ogre".

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia, but I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation ....

There have been some instances in which the EU has managed to stop the US doing its most possible damage, I'm thinking of the time the UK refused to join the US in bombing Syria, that stopped a large(er) scale operation from developing.

Not that the US and, in this case, even more Russia, didn't do its fair share of atrocities in Syria, but it could have been even worse, which is kind of hard to say given how bad Syria is now.

But I think there should be at least some attempts by a few EU countries to stop this inertia, something, is better than nothing, obviously.

But signs aren't good.

But I think there should be at least some attempts by a few EU countries to stop this inertia, — Manuel

Yea, like what? :rofl:

Refusing to cooperate by not sending more weapons, as Germany has done. Asking for more diplomacy instead of causing tensions to rise by repeatedly saying an invasion is imminent.

Is wanting to stop escalations to a potential nuclear catastrophe funny somehow?

I'm missing in on the joke.

Refusing to cooperate by not sending more weapons — Manuel

That's not going to accomplish a whole lot.

Is wanting to stop escalations to a potential nuclear catastrophe funny somehow? — Manuel

If that's where we are, there's not a damn thing Europe can do about it.

If you weren't so hell bent on seeing the world through the lens of the Cuban missile crisis, you might notice the plethora of signs that the USA is in decline. Putin noticed it. That's why he's preparing to invade Ukraine.

smh

If you weren't so hell bent on seeing the world through the lens of the Cuban missile crisis, you might notice the plethora of signs that the USA is in decline. Putin noticed it. That's why he's preparing to invade Ukraine. — frank

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/9/10/infographic-us-military-presence-around-the-world-interactive

Yea?

Well, Ukraine indeed has better worker rights than in the US (or in Australia) according to the Labour rights Index, yet the wages are quite low. — ssu

Well yes, because they haven't been neoliberalized to shit by the bloodsucking Western Powers. And yes of course no one wants Ukraine and Turkey in the EU. They are economic basket cases, with the latter being run by an increasingly religious nutjob who fancies himself the next Sultan while blackmailing Europe over immigrants. As they Ukraine, they will no doubt dangle the distant prospect of membership to bash their economy into neoliberal submission in the meantime.

That's comparing the US military to all the other ones in the world. Has the budget for the Pentagon gone down?

What does China emerging as the bigger market have to do with Russia's plan's with Ukraine? Russia's power has vastly diminished since the USSR.

I don't know how this has anything to do with the crisis in Ukraine.

Finland, a country that depends on EU subsidies and loans — Apollodorus

Finland pays roughly over 700 million euros more to the EU that what it gets back in subsidies and other payments. Finland, just like Sweden, Denmark or Germany, has been a net contributor (not big, but still a net contributor) to the union during it's time in the union.

Strangely, you seem to systematically ignore the role played by economic interests. — Apollodorus

Strangely you seem to think that no other reasons are in play especially in security policy, but everything is just the machinations of the banks and the powers at be.

However, the reality is that you can't separate economy from politics, especially in America where economic interests have long dominated foreign policy. Leading industries like oil and defense have always had and continue to have influence on US foreign policy. — Apollodorus

And how about taken into considerations the foreign policies of European countries as we are talking about European countries? The US is just one player here, not the only player. Russia is a country where the oil industry is a servant of the state.

I can understand your concern for Ukrainians, even though it doesn't seem to extend to other European nations including Russia — Apollodorus

Do you think all Russians are happy with having a President for life? In truth, Russian are even more skeptical about their government than Americans are of theirs.

I think your analysis would be more credible if you didn't deliberately leave some key factors out of the equation .... — Apollodorus

That's why we have these debates on this Forum, don't we?

That's comparing the US military to all the other ones in the world. Has the budget for the Pentagon gone down? — Manuel

So you're reading that as a sign of American aggression in the present, instead if the result of global conditions throughout the 20th Century, which is what it really is.

What does China emerging as the bigger market have to do with Russia's plan's with Ukraine? Russia's power has vastly diminished since the USSR.

I don't know how this has anything to do with the crisis in Ukraine. — Manuel

You're not making much sense to me at this point.

So you're reading that as a sign of American aggression in the present, instead if the result of global conditions throughout the 20th Century, which is what it really is. — frank

It's the condition of the US as of last year. If you can show me massive cuts in military spending, then you can say that US power is going down, literally.

If they maintain bases all over the world, there isn't a measurable decrease in power.

Not to mention the US is essentially the driver of Japanese and South Korean foreign policy and the vast majority of Western Europe too, to this day.

You're not making much sense to me at this point. — frank

You're saying that the reason Russia wants to invade Ukraine is because the US is in decline. I don't see the evidence for this claim.

The biggest factor I've seen, is that Ukraine want to join NATO. Which renders a hostile military force at the borders of Russia.

What should they say "yes thank you?"