I guess so.

The absolute inability for you to understand Russia leaves me nearly speechless. — ssu

And what leaves me nearly speechless is your absolute inability to understand anything relating to international relations. You're obviously looking at it from the distorted perspective of a self-radicalized Finnish Russophobe.

For starters, I never said that I "cherish Russia's totalitarian regime". so, as far as I'm concerned, that's a lie.

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you?

The fact is that Russia is the largest country on earth. A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland.

Moreover, Putin still has the backing of the majority of voters. Russians in general are more concerned about the economic situation than about Putin's alleged "totalitarianism".

It is economic factors that motivate countries to join the EU, but once they realize the ramifications of the political strings attached to EU membership, many have second thoughts. That's why Britain has already left the EU and other member states like Hungary and Italy, are beginning to think of leaving the sinking EU ship by looking for alternative partnerships.

Anyway, by definition, joining the EU means losing some of your sovereignty and abiding by EU laws made in Brussels. And unlimited expansion can only lead to (US-controlled) world government. If countries have the right to join the American world state, they also have the right to preserve their freedom and independence.

Countries like Russia, India, China, have a strong sense of national identity and independence and they aren't going to be turned into satellites of the US or EU without a fight.

So no, I'm not "pro-Putin" at all. I am for national freedom and independence and against liberal capitalist world government. This may be inconvenient to you, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Please follow my Black History Month posts in the shout box. It might help you.

I doubt that this has much to do with the Ukraine crisis, but I will follow it when I get the time.

Well for some strange reason American music has something to do with the invasion of Ukraine :lol:

Thus Black History Month.

Oh you'd love him. Or at least many Republicans (democrats?) would love him. I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump). And you would have him for President for two terms and then you would have him as vice-president of the following administrations for a long, long time. After all, there was a time he did have that role and Medvedev was the President (for one term).

(Do notice where Vladimir is sitting in this picture.)

I guess here in PF would be people that absolutely would hate him (even more than Trump) — ssu

I don't think so. He seems to be viewed as only looking after Russia's interests in preparing for invasion, or at least that's what I think some were saying

If, by your own admission, even Russian opposition leaders are "cool toward the West", what does that say to you? — Apollodorus

I've always said that there was a brief window of opportunity when the Soviet Union collapsed when Russia and Russians were truly open for a new relationship with the West. It was the time when Dzerzinsky's statue was taken out of the front of the KGB headquarters. But the West, self centered and haughty as usual, thought Russia was over and nothing would come of it. You simply would have had larger than life politicians to make these two countries friends as they were no American tanks on the Red Square. Then Russia has always had two sides, the Westernizers and those who see the West as trouble. These two views go long into Russian history. (And should be noted, that the West Europe has also had this difficult relationship to Eastern Europe and especially Russia, to Orthodoxy and East European culture since the time of East-Rome, which we called Byzantium)

And then two things happened. NATO went into finding "a new mission" for itself with "peace-enforcement" and if the intervention to Bosnia was somehow tolerated by Russia, what was the end point was the Kosovo war. That broke the camel's back and you had the first direct confrontation between Russia. I think that was the time it all went south, so don't assume Russia would even want to be an ally of the US. NATO enlargement was one thing, but an active NATO not only confined to defending itself and having it's members not to fight each other, but active somewhere else was the issue (do note for example that the Gulf War wasn't a NATO mission).

(Why the incident in Pristina airport was important can be seen how Russians view it now)

or see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzZm2zdZ9_U

And the second reason of course is that an intelligence service chief who saw the fall of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster of the 20th Century into power. He needs an enemy to justify the power grab he has done. Simple as that.

A country of Russia's geographic dimensions inhabited by distinct ethnic and cultural groups would fall apart very fast without a degree of central authority, and that's for Russian citizens to decide, not for Finland. — Apollodorus

LOL! Oh yes, as we would have any say about that.

And Umm...my point is that countries should themselves have the right to decide themselves their future.

I guess if he would be the US President Vladimir would have been born in a place like New York or Chicago, then joined the CIA and now would protect American interests all around the World.

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. I would think such a president would prefer to back a coup rather than deploy the military . It's cheaper.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target.

It's almost as if a nation cares for its own aspirations over some global justice

Euro leadership is essentially a power struggle in which they French thought they would be able to command the German economy. And no political union worthy of the name, was ever seriously considered. — Manuel

Well, even economic union was only considered under US pressure, which really exposes the undemocratic nature of the whole EU project.

But there were unionist or federalist elements that were talking about “ever-closer union”.

The 1957 Treaty of Rome which established the EU’s precursor, the European Economic Community, states in the Preamble that the signatory countries,

are determined to establish the foundations of an ever-closer union between the peoples of Europe (déterminés à établir les fondements d'une union sans cesse plus étroite)

TRAITÉ instituant la Communauté Économique Européenne et documents annexes

Note that there is no English version of the treaty as the Brits had no intention of signing it due to French opposition and because the British people didn’t want to be part of a European Union. It took a massive propaganda campaign by Churchill’s United Europe Movement and associated organizations to get Britain to apply for membership in 1961 and it finally joined in 1973.

However, the project was actually referred to as “United States of Europe” already in the early 1900’s and long after the project had began to be implemented in the post-war decades, including by Churchill himself.

Soon after Britain joined, the European Commission established the European Monetary System and in 1981 it proposed closer links between the central banks of the European Community and the US Federal Reserve System - which shows the direction in which things were moving. If closer political integration didn’t happen, this is because of public opposition and divergent national interests. But it is absolutely clear that the “United States of Europe” was to be modeled on the United States of America.

In any case, Germany remained Europe’s strongest economy. In 1982 France’s trade deficit with West Germany, its main trade partner, accounted for more than 40 percent of the total!

This is why I’m saying that it is unacceptable for a country with Germany’s population, economy, and central location in Europe, to have no military comparable to weaker economies like Britain and France, and for Europe as a whole to depend on its rival America for its defense.

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission.

The end result of this insane situation is that Europe is unable to be an equal partner either to Russia or America and this leads to situations like the Ukraine crisis.

In a saner, more democratic, and more equitable world, Europe and Russia who are next-door neighbors and have close historical and cultural links, ought to be close partners and allies. But this is not possible with the EU and NATO's policy of unlimited expansion, and with America constantly sticking its nose in other people’s business and telling them what to do.

So, we can see that the tensions between Europe and Russia are ultimately the result of America's self-interested divide-and-rule policy. If we think about it, cooperation between Europe with its population of 450 million and strong economy (especially under German leadership) on one hand, and Russia with its huge natural resources on the other hand, would make an unbeatable economic and military bloc that no one would dare even think of bullying and pushing around.

And this is precisely why America and its British poodle are sowing division between Europe and Russia and prefer war to peace.

In any case, NATO is definitely up to something because there is a lot of military movement all over Eastern Europe where locals clearly don't want a war. I wouldn't be surprised if Britain arranged for Croatia to attack Serbia in order to get Russia to retaliate after which Britain and America will move in.

Turkey obviously has its own plans and may use the situation to occupy parts of Southeastern Europe in exchange for intervention in Ukraine on NATO's side, etc., etc.

So, there is a lot of potential for the situation to develop into something like WW1. If it does, we must bear in mind that a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be a very limited, local conflict. In contrast, NATO intervention would amount to world war.

Of course, the US needed allies and a market for exports. The Marshall plan was not done out of pure charity.

Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war.

There is no reason to doubt the conventional wisdom regarding the Marshall plan: it was to get the British and French back on the job of securing the infrastructure of global trade. Only after it became clear that that wasn't going to happen did the US government start thinking about doing that job itself (with zero experience and a second rate economy).

Just note that you have a tendency to let your biases caus

Correct. Same with Japan, they had an internal debate as to how to handle the post WWII world.

The world needed supplies, the US needed market for surplus production.

The world needed supplies, the US needed market for surplus production. — Manuel

You're saying that on the heels of a devastating depression and fighting two wars simultaneously, the US was worried about excess production, so they invested in reindustrializing Europe.
:up:

That's right. As openly admitted by George Marshall and Dean Acheson, it was US self-interest, even though this was naturally denied in Europe.

But one of NATO's main objectives was "to keep the Germans down". And if you look at a map of Europe, you will see the devastating effect this has had, and continues to have, on the whole of Europe.

In military terms, you've got nuclear powers Britain and France on the western flank, then you have this huge almost empty space all across Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe, after which you have non-European powers Russia and Turkey on the eastern flank.

Britain is an extension of America, France likes to do its own things, and Russia and Turkey each have their own interests. Obviously, it is impossible to have a stable balance of powers in this situation. The end result is that non-European powers from America to Turkey feel almost invited to meddle in European affairs.

And we can see that from a Russian perspective, if Ukraine joins the EU and NATO, NATO (i.e., America) will be right on Russia's western borders, which will force Russia to keep a permanent military presence to guard its western flank and will reduce its defense capability in other areas like Central Asia where the EU and NATO are also trying to expand ....

These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc.

When elites differ, you can have divergent policies in economic and military affairs, though these aren't too common.

Mark Blyth says it's the other way around: the world needed the US to buy its goods and establish stability after the war. — frank

Mark Blyth? This is not how George Marshall put it. He said European cities were unable to produce goods that European farmers wanted, so the farmers who had no problem feeding themselves, refused to sell food to the urban population.

The result was that European cities were unable to buy US goods and this was bad news for the US economy:

The truth of the matter is that Europe’s requirements for the next three or four years of foreign food and other essential products–principally from America–are so much greater than her present ability to pay … Aside from the demoralizing effect on the world at large and the possibilities of disturbances arising as a result of the desperation of the people concerned, the consequences to the economy of the United States should be apparent to all.

The Marshall Plan Speech – Marshall Foundation

So it was US self-interest, at least this is how the Marshall Plan was sold to Congress, and only after a big propaganda campaign as many Americans were neither particularly impressed nor interested ....

So it was US self-interest — Apollodorus

Sure. It was about defense, not economics.

These power systems don't go down without a fight. And as usual, the so called "national interests" reflect the interests of the elite within that society, US, UK, etc. — Manuel

Correct. And the US-UK new world order that was supposed to ensure "world peace" is once again plunging the world into war ....

I don't know if a member of the CIA has ever run for president. — frank

A director of the CIA has actually been later the President of the US. (Not a career spy, but anyway)


...and btw, a far more cautious foreign policy with him than with later Republican presidents, even if he invaded Panama.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. Just to put things into context, the largest military exercise the Soviet Union held towards the West had 150 000 troops (Zapad-81). The largest military exercise since WW2 held in the West was Reforger 1988 with 125 000 troops.

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there. And of course, tanks assembled row after row in vehicle depot means that they aren't fielded tactically.

It should be remembered that the Zapad exercises (same name as with the exercises the Soviet Union held) with Belarus have nearly always stoked fears (after 2014) about Russian motivations in the West, yet nothing has happened so far. So perhaps the Russian army simply adapts to live in tents for a prolonged time. Which actually isn't such a bad idea for an army...

Why is it Europe that depends on America on defense matters, and not America on Europe, or Russia on America? WHY is Europe always the weaker partner even though it has a larger population???

It is this totally abnormal, unparalleled, and unacceptable situation that has created a dangerous power vacuum right in the center of Europe, and has enabled non-European powers like America to bully the whole of Europe into submission. — Apollodorus

A good question.

I think the reason is that only the UK wasn't defeated, wasn't occupied, during WW2. The only two European countries that think they are Great Powers, that see themselves to be in a position that they should use the military as an extension of their foreign diplomacy are UK and France.

For (West) Germany it was a traumatic experience and they truly had to search their souls after Hitler and nazism (while East Germany denied it had anything to do with them and Austrians suddenly noticed that they weren't actually Germans). Just like Japan, it has been cautious of not looking militaristic. Italy suffered a humiliating defeat and the other smaller countries that participated in WW2 lost and were occupied (with only one avoiding occupation). And Spain had lost it's Empire a long time ago (and had even a civil war after that). For Soviet Union and Russia it of course was different.

Yet it truly affects the psyche of country when it's defense fails and the huge sacrifices, if there were those, were for nothing. And WW1 and WW2 have made an impact. Hence Europe simply doesn't have the will or the stomach to carry that "big stick", be bellicose and genuinely is all but happy with the US handling those issues. And do notice that the US behaviour in Europe is totally different from let's say it behaves in Central America and Caribbean. Something like the Berlin Airlift did show the Germans that the US were friends.

A similar story from history would be when Rome at first defeated the Carthaginians and the Carthaginians adopted a non-militaristic approach. While they weren't fight Rome anymore and didn't have a huge army as an expense, the city-state prospered in trade. In they found it totally acceptable. Yet of course the Romans didn't, and they decided to annihilate the city altogether as there could not be any successful competitor in trade with Rome.

Western Europe is simply happy to be the junior partner with the US, just like the UK. After all, how many times has the US toppled British governments, backed up military coups, assassinated it's Prime Minister's, made open threats about intervention or sent cruise missiles into London?

If it had done any of the above, I would guarantee that the British wouldn't like you as much as now. And that's the bottom line just why the US can in your own words, "bully the whole of Europe into submission". Let's say it has used silk gloves and not an iron fist to handle West Europe.

I think it is clear that you have no intention or interest in quitting the pro-EU and pro-NATO narrative or propaganda.

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so.

Regarding the Marshall Plan which was announced in 1947, (1) it was devised by America to serve US economic self-interests, and (2) it stipulated European economic integration.

This means that the European countries that subscribed to the Marshall Plan deal pledged themselves to working toward the establishment of a united or federated Europe often referred to as “United States of Europe” after the US model.

Germany was under Allied (US) military occupation and was run according to the Occupation Statute that expressly put German foreign policy under the control of the Allies.

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany.

Once Germany and France had been made to comply, smaller countries whose economies depended on German and French industry, namely Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, had no choice but to join Germany and France to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

In the Messina Declaration of June 1955, the Six ECSC states resolved that their governments:

believe that the establishment of a united Europe must be achieved through the development of common institutions, the progressive fusion of national economies, the creation of a common market, and the gradual harmonization of their social policies

Next, ECSC president Jean Monnet set up the Action Committee for the United States of Europe (ACUSE). The official press statement said:

by the Committee’s intervention and that of the organizations grouped within it, its action will consist in demonstrating to governments, parliaments and public opinion their determination to see the Messina resolution of June 2nd become a veritable step toward a United States of Europe … To achieve these objectives, it is necessary to put aside all specious solutions. Mere cooperation between governments will not suffice. It is indispensable for States to delegate certain of their powers to European federal institutions. At the same time the close association of Great Britain with these new accomplishments must be assured …

Press release on the creation of the Action Committee for a United States of Europe (Paris, 12 October 1955) - CVCE

The next step was to get Britain to join. This was not easy because the British public had zero appetite for being part of Europe.

However, Churchill was a close collaborator of America and his private secretary Arthur Salter who was a key figure in the Foreign Office, had published a book called The United States of Europe in 1931.

Churchill himself had been campaigning for European union since 1946. In 1947 he organized the United Europe Movement (UEM) with his son-in-law Duncan Sandys and together with the French they set up the Joint International Committee of the Movement for European Unity (JICMEU).

We know exactly what Churchill’s ulterior motive was, namely to incorporate Europe into a US-led world government:

We are engaged in the process of creating a European unit in the world organization of the United Nations … We are not in any way the rival of the world organization. We are a subordinate but essential element in its ultimate structure.

Address to the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, Aug. 17 1949

We also know that Churchill’s propaganda campaign was funded by the US government agency, the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA) which had been set up to administer Marshall Plan funds.

On its part, Russia identified the whole project as a creation of US capitalist interests and decided to prevent European states under its influence or control, namely East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Yugoslavia, Finland, from joining the project.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. Either way, European countries had to cede their powers to supranational institutions ....

And there are still some who claim that Europe was (and is) “sovereign, independent, and free”!

IMO true European sovereignty, independence, and freedom can be restored ONLY if the peoples of Europe resolve to stand up for their rights and fight against all forms of foreign domination.

And for this to happen, Europe must know the truth about the institutions that make it subservient to foreign interests and that keep it in an unacceptable condition of servitude and slavery. Imperialism and colonialism in all forms and shapes must be abolished once and for all.

Yet Russia has persistently trained it's troops in huge formations not seen in Western military exercises and hence can adapt to the troops being there. — ssu

Odd. Maybe he was reading War and Peace and thought it would be fun to get out there and camp in the mud.

So the Ukrainian military is saying that Russia is getting close to invasion-ready.

Looks like it's going to be a blood bath.

Waving an invasion banner visible to spy satellites is a flamboyant message of some kind, especially when your real opponent knows you have logistical challenges wrt your target. — frank

Well, you can't mount a full-scale invasion in secret, so this is neither here nor there. If they were in fact preparing for an invasion, it would look pretty much how it looks today.

And costly. Put into the field over 100 000+ troops and then have them there for months is expensive. Usually armed forces don't do it. — ssu

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making.

some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat

They also say it's going to be a blood bath. Maybe it will be quick.

As I said, it is very easy to trace the history of the EU (and NATO) IF there is a will to do so. — Apollodorus

You seem to be simply a bit illogical or confused here, even if I think you have the historical facts correct.

For example, let's take how you see French involvement:

France was under US pressure to join the United States of Europe project and to take a leading role in it by merging its coal and steel industries with those of Germany. — Apollodorus

You don't realize how loonie what you say is.

So if it's the French Foreign Minister that first proposes an European Coal and Steel Community in 1950 in order to to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible", then somehow, somewhere, you concoct this idea that France WAS FORCED to take A LEADING ROLE in this project.

That's how it goes? Forcing France to take a leading role? How do you force a country to take a leading role? I've never heard about such micromanagement. What was the pressure? How was France forced to do that? Or is impossible for you to think that they might have themselves also seen this as something good?

You see, the vast majority of history books say and I agree that the US encouraged European integration for obvious reasons, as Europe had just gone through a devastating war. Encouraging a person or state to do something is a bit different than to force them to do it. But of course, you don't see it that way (I get it).

The basic problem is that you see all West Europeans as puppets of the US that behave just how Washington wants them to act! Starting from agent Churchill, who obviously is just a mouthpiece of the Americans that served loyally his masters in Washington.

As if Europeans would have been utterly unable to see themselves how devastating two World Wars had been to their continent and that France and Germany ought to do something else than prepare for the next war against each other. Oh no! For @Apollorodus, that was just a machination of the Americans! The French had to be forced into these kind of ideas.

And naturally, any other view than his is Pro-EU, Pro-NATO propaganda.

So, essentially, half of Europe was ordered by America to join the United States of Europe, and the other half was ordered by Russia not to join. — Apollodorus

And this shows clearly your bias. As if Europeans didn't have anything to do with this. Also leaving obviously out that the actual orders and commands, more than just not to join the West, were given in the countries that the Soviet Union occupied tells a lot too.

Which is why in the earlier stages of the buildup they were mostly moving armor, and artillery, which take longer to transport and deploy - with skeleton crews and little support. (This actually prompted some commentators to dismiss the possibility of an invasion.) But now it looks like they are deploying additional infantry, military hospitals, support units.

No one knows whether this is a monstrous bluff or the real thing, but some military analysts say that so far it looks like a textbook example of an invasion in the making. — SophistiCat

This I've read now from many various references. When Russia occupied the Crimea in 2014, the lack of a logistics tail fooled Western observers (and they were then focused hunting terrorists anyway). Now the arrival of that logistical tail, field hospitals, ammo depots etc. sends a message.

Of course what is totally lacking here is the strategic surprise (which they had in 2014). This might genuinely make Putin to weigh his options here. Or then, let's hope, that this genuinely is a huge bluff to get the US and NATO to sit down and talk (or as others put it, a Western media hype) and a huge camping out of the Russian military.

(A pro-Ukrainian demonstration in Kharkiv yesterday)