How can the blatant pro-Putin and apathy of the republican party be something the US people would support? What the fuck is wrong with people? — Christoffer

Since World War II the United States military has killed or helped kill 20 million people in the overthrow of at least 36 governments

What on earth makes you think the American people give a shit about warmongers?

Do you think that all the citizens who must stay and fight against an invasion are the same? — Amity

How could I possibly? No. Just disrupting the rosy media-friendly picture of the poor underdog Ukrainians being set upon by nasty thugish Russia.

What on earth makes you think the American people give a shit about warmongers? — Isaac

Because Putin isn't just some small-time dictator or some proxy war puppet they can throw around. We can criticize the US in another thread and I agree with you that the "world police" practices of the US is horrible throughout history. But when it comes to Putin, especially in light of his attempt at rewriting history to fit his narrative, he's now acting as a Stalin-type dictator. He is a real threat to world peace, not just an isolated spot of geopolitical conflict in which the US can interact with the interests of natural resources or other reasons.

So this isn't just another proxy conflict, this is a major threat of global proportions. And just as a reminder of what the lunatic has in store if he completely loses it, tsar bomba.

It’s an abject failure if the American system that Trump isn’t in jail already for sedition. — Wayfarer

Yes. Why is it taking so long? It's not like there isn't clear evidence.

It is frightening to think that he, or his offspring, could win again.
What is there to prevent it?

Wayfarer, I'm seriously worried about the way things are going in this country as well.
There seems to be an inevitability...the roll of lies...leading to the dismantling of all the protections and rights that have been gained and fought for over the years.

Where is the necessary hard-hitting opposition calling out the lies as they happen.
If all the anti-Tory parties, anti-corruption groups, etc. don't get their act together...
A cruel dictatorship will rule forever.

I despair and it makes me sick to the stomach. I should take a break from the news for sanity's sake.

He is a real threat to world peace — Christoffer

According to whom?

just as a reminder of what the lunatic has in store if he completely loses it, tsar bomba. — Christoffer

Ah, yes. The main threat. The nuclear weapon. The one which Russia has never used. As opposed to the one which America has used. Twice. And yet Russia is the main threat here.

What's the weather like where you are? — Amity

Hello there Amity. Sadly it's been above zero in Moscow for a couple of weeks so a lot of the snow has gone and the streets are all yucky. My cross-country skiing trip in a week is in danger of being a washout.

As for the political weather, it's unsettled. Most Russians obviously don't want conflict with their Ukrainian brothers and sisters (as they would put it) and most Russians I know are angry with Putin and very worried about the Russian economy. I'm unusual among the people I know here in criticizing the West so much, but that's only natural, as their focus is domestic politics and my political background is Western leftism. As far as the Russians I know criticize the Western mainstream media depiction of events, it's to dismiss it as merely silly.

Any thoughts you can share? — Amity

About this topic? Not many. In this thread there are too many thoughtless sensationalist cheerleaders and useful idiots for the West, parroting the crap they are being fed by the Western media.* I'd like to say there's no point in engaging with it but there probably is--it's just that I don't have the stomach for it. Too many people here are not interested in understanding the situation. I discovered that in previous discussions. An attempt at calm assessment is greeted with demands for condemnation etc. It's a waste of time.

Plus I really don't have enough of an idea what is going on or what Putin's strategy is. And disillusionment now deters me from even trying to find out more.

I did share an article early in the discussion, which I think still applies, as does the video that I like sushi posted. They put the whole thing in context. Characteristically, they didn't produce much discussion, although I'll give credit to SophistiCat for engaging reasonably and critically with them (as I recall).

*On the other hand, I don't like Russian propaganda either, and I don't even go along entirely with anti-Western Western journalists like John Pilger, who swings too far the other way--although it would be nice to see more of those critical voices.

I don't think people realize just how incompetent Trump and the Republicans are on the world stage. — Christoffer

It's obvious that the whole party is a mess.

Do note that on the other hand, especially when not facing or speaking directly to the Trump supporting voters, large part of the Republicans behave totally normally and understand what has happened. Some interpret this as there being two factions, but remember how totally schizophrenic the Trump administration was itself. Yes, Trump praised Putin all the time and believed Putin instead of his intelligence services. However the administration was not at all so friendly to Putin's agenda. Especially the former generals, apart from the one that was the national security advisor for only a few days, were examples of the consistent long-term US foreign & security policy thinking. The Trump crazies were more or less limited to the media show and the spin cycle of Trump, where Trump basically personally operates (when he isn't watching at Fox News).

Even as Trump portrays himself as better-equipped to counter Putin, the majority of congressional Republicans are backing Biden’s vow to impose crushing sanctions on Russia after its troops entered eastern Ukraine on Tuesday. Some have even praised Biden’s moves, like the deployment of additional U.S. troops to Eastern Europe to boost NATO’s defenses.

But a vocal GOP minority on and off Capitol Hill — represented by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance, among others — has taken a third path, actively arguing against any U.S. involvement in the region while still dinging Biden. They argue that expanding the U.S. commitment to NATO is a mistake, and that the president should instead focus on countering China and securing America’s southern border.

That discordant chorus is making it harder for Republicans to craft a unified message on Russia the way it did during last year’s chaotic U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan or during Putin’s invasion of Crimea when Barack Obama was president in 2014.

Conservatives in the third, self-described “America First” camp contend that the GOP base is on their side, even as congressional Republicans are for the most part in line behind Ukraine and NATO.

It's like the public comments to the loonie crowd are one thing and then there is the actual policies implemented behind closed doors is something different. And yes, this is actually very worrying as it doesn't work well at all.

First Trump administration went somehow, if you have a SECOND Trump administration, oh boy...

According to whom? — Isaac

According to us living here in Europe, according to everyone involved with global trade, global interactions. It's very naive to pinpoint the distance to Russia as an argument that Russia isn't a major threat and even if Russia is only a direct threat towards other nations in Europe, do you really think a major escalation of war in Europe wouldn't affect the US? What the hell did you think happened in both WWI and WWII?

Ah, yes. The main threat. The nuclear weapon. The one which Russia has never used. As opposed to the one which America has used. Twice. And yet Russia is the main threat here. — Isaac

US interests in modern times are far away from what they were at the ending years of WWII. It can also be argued that because of the act of actually using the bombs, US wouldn't dare to use them again because that would put major crosshairs back on them.

And the threat doesn't come from the bomb themselves, it comes from the one wielding them. Putin is a literal lunatic, THAT is the threat. We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy. Are you seriously this naive as to what is an actual threat in modern times?

Plus I really don't have enough of an idea what is going on or what Putin's strategy is. And disillusionment now deters me from even trying to find out more.

I did share an article early in the discussion, which I think still applies, as does the video that I like sushi posted. They put the whole thing in context. Characteristically, they didn't produce much discussion, although I'll give credit to SophistiCat for engaging reasonably and critically with them (as I recall). — jamalrob

Thanks. I came to this thread very late and haven't read it all.
We're now on p17.
Can you remember roughly - or exactly - where you and others shared the context of the Ukraine Crisis?

Sadly it's been above zero in Moscow for a couple of weeks so a lot of the snow has gone and the streets are all yucky. My cross-country skiing trip in a week is in danger of being a washout. — jamalrob

Oh no, not dirty slushiness - I hate that!
Thought about water-skiing? :smile:

They argue that expanding the U.S. commitment to NATO is a mistake, and that the president should instead focus on countering China and securing America’s southern border.

That doesn't help if China gets in bed with Russia. Fighting Russia is fighting China. And if relations with China get worse, their relation with Russia will strengthen and that is bad... that is really really bad. The relationship between China and US needs to be an arms-length trading act where the benefits of trade between China and US is more beneficial of both than actively blocking that trade.

China can cuddle with Putin and Russia all they want, but if the trade vitality between China and the west, especially US is strong and beneficial, then China won't fully support Russia until such a trade with the west and US collapses.

What "America first" people don't get is how international trade and relations keep the peace people take for granted. It's this globalization that has kept the world from new world wars. All it takes is either to close borders and stop interacting with other nations or let a lunatic roam free for too long.

Putin dreams Soviet dreams. Anyone who doesn't understand how dangerous that is don't know history.

Can you remember roughly - or exactly — Amity

First page. It doesn't shed much light on exactly what is happening now but it's worth looking at.

Oh no, not dirty slushiness - I hate that! — Amity

Yes, dirty grey kerbside snow mountains abound.

:up:


Yuck.

Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac

Not all Ukrainians are “Nazis”, but some definitely are and they have links to the government in Kiev:

As Ukraine’s struggle against Russia and its proxies continues, Kiev must also contend with a growing problem behind the front lines: far-right vigilantes who are willing to use intimidation and even violence to advance their agendas, and who often do so with the tacit approval of law enforcement agencies.

Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem - Reuters

Incidentally, British capitalists have always aimed to infiltrate Russia and get their hands on its natural resources, especially metal and coal mines. The cities of Donetsk and Luhansk were actually founded by British industrialists who persuaded the Russian Czar to allow them to “develop” the area in the 1700’s and 1800’s by building metal factories and other operations. Over the years, the majority of people that settled there were Russians.

So, the area wasn’t strictly speaking “Ukrainian” and this should have been taken into consideration when Ukraine became independent.

The other problem that arose from Ukrainian independence was the Black Sea Fleet that had its primary base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The Fleet had belonged to the Russian Empire and, after it, to the Soviet Union. When Ukraine declared itself independent in 1991, the problem that immediately arose was who should control the Black Sea Fleet and where its bases should be located. The majority of the officers remained loyal to Russia, but the naval bases were now on Ukrainian territory!

After several agreements in which Ukraine “leased” (formerly joint) naval facilities to Russia, the turning point came during the Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 when Ukraine which sided with Georgia objected to Russia’s use of the Black Sea Fleet, and George W. Bush suggested a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) for Georgia and Ukraine. In the following year Ukrainian president Yushchenko announced that the lease would not be extended and that the Russian fleet would have to leave Ukrainian territory by 2017.

As we know, Russia responded by annexing Crimea in 2014, three years before it would have gotten kicked out by Ukraine. It follows that the situation did not happen out of the blue and it has nothing to do with “Russian imperialism”.

This is why I have been arguing that Russia has a point on Crimea and on NATO expansion (NOT on everything that Putin says!) and that the conflict could have been avoided if Ukraine had agreed to share Crimea with Russia. Also, making the Black Sea into a NATO lake, is a direct threat to Russia’s national interests by blocking its access to the Mediterranean. So, yes, we should be against war but not against reason.

And I agree with @jamalrob's analysis to the effect that "in this thread there are too many useful idiots for the West, parroting the crap they are being fed by the Western media".

I think a greater degree of objectivity and better acquaintance with the facts (including historical events) would be in everyone's interests if we are to avoid descending into unphilosophical (or unthinking) black propaganda and political mudslinging ....

according to everyone involved with global trade, global interactions. — Christoffer

Who? 'Everyone' is not an answer. Give me a non-partisan source claiming Russia is the main threat to world peace, so we've something beyond your opinion, to work with.

We can criticize the politics of the US, but Putin is a dictator in his rule, he's putting in place a lifetime seat as the leader of Russia and people under him is playing theatre so that the rest of the world thinks Russia is a democracy. — Christoffer

So? In terms of actual harm the choose-your-preferred-colour-of-warmonger 'democracy' in America is way more damaging. I mean demonstrably so. How many has Putin killed? America's total stands a little over 20 million.

It's no good bleating about democracy when a living breathing democracy is sweeping though the world killing millions in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions. Democracy isn't going to save us here.

I can list all the wars America has orchestrated and the measures of their destruction (though it sounds as though you might already agree, saving me the trouble), so what are you putting up against the war crimes of this 'democracy' to support the notion that veering from its political methodology is the most significant threat to peace?

Are you seriously this naive as to what is an actual threat in modern times? — Christoffer

What's 'naive' is assuming that the most powerful corporations and elites the world has ever seen are in any way held back by something as trivial as 'democracy'.

20 million dead in American wars, 40 million in debt slavery serving (largely) Western supply chains, 700 children dead every hour because of poverty perpetuated by (largely) Western financial institutions...

No one's saying Russia is innocent, but try speaking to the parents of the 700 children who just died from poverty whilst you were writing your post and see if they give a shit whose flag is over Donetsk and Luhansk.

Plus I really don't have enough of an idea what is going on or what Putin's strategy is — jamalrob

I quite like the below thread by Sam Greene over at King's, which makes alot of sense to me, and certainly more than the cartoon character caricature painted by some here:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1491837537949736975.html

This point in particular:

"The expansion of EU influence puts insurmountable pressure on the Russian political economy to move from a rent-based, patronal model of wealth creation and power relations, to a system of institutionalized competition. ...Even within its current borders, the EU puts immense pressure on Russia to do things like adapt the natural gas sector -- the country's biggest source of rents -- to fit the Third Energy Package. Moscow's worst nightmare isn't hypersonic missiles in Ukraine -- it's the EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. Now imagine that mechanism -- and others like it -- extended to Ukraine, and maybe you begin to get my point."

---

The idea that Russia represents this apocalyptic threat to European peace and stability when the ECB and EMU exists is perhaps, the funniest part of the hysteria.

As some of you know, Putin gave a long televised speech to the nation a few days ago, which is a very unusual occurrence. You can read it here:

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828

Or here: https://russiaun.ru/en/news/22022p

It's an interesting speech and everyone here should read the whole thing to get an idea of what Putin is thinking. At one point he says this:

You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.

He says this after explaining how the state of Ukraine came into being, that it's a product of the Bolshevik policy of giving autonomy to the various ethnic groups of the former Russian Empire, a policy of Lenin's that Putin severely criticizes because it sowed the seeds of later disintegration. So "real decommunization" would be the reversal of this decision.

So am I reading it right, as a bald threat? "Real decommunization" being the end of Ukrainian statehood? It seems uncharacteristically careless and he doesn't really pick up on it later in the speech. I suppose it is meant mainly as a sabre-rattling intimidation directed at Ukraine's political elite, but doesn't it open him up to accusations of empire-building, which as far as I know he has up till now denied? I don't suppose he cares about that, but still, it struck me as odd.

I quite like the below thread by Sam Greene over at King's, which makes alot of sense to me, and certainly more than the cartoon character caricature painted by some here — StreetlightX

:up:

The idea that Russia represents this apocalyptic threat to European peace and stability when the ECB and EMU exists is perhaps, the funniest part of the hysteria. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I expect the people of Spain and Greece are quaking in their boots at the prospect of a change in government in a country a thousand miles away... Oh, except they can't afford boots anymore.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-greece-poverty-idUSKBN15Z1NM

Who? 'Everyone' is not an answer. Give me a non-partisan source claiming Russia is the main threat to world peace, so we've something beyond your opinion, to work with. — Isaac

Everyone is pointing out how Russia is a "security risk", it's political lingo. No one can speak in the way you require because of diplomacy. You cannot call out someone as a dictator threatening world peace and expect diplomacy further down the road. "Security risk" means that Putin threatens the security of Europe and in extention world peace.

So? In terms of actual harm the choose-your-preferred-colour-of-warmonger 'democracy' in America is way more damaging. I mean demonstrably so. How many has Putin killed? America's total stands a little over 20 million. — Isaac

You are comparing "America" to "Putin". Aren't you suppose to compare "America" to "Russia"? Then apply Soviet history and a guy named Putin who dream Soviet dreams, of reclaiming that power.

It's no good bleating about democracy when a living breathing democracy is sweeping though the world killing millions in pursuit of its imperialist ambitions. Democracy isn't going to save us here. — Isaac

Who the fuck said anything about democracy? I spoke of a lunatic named Putin who wants to reclaim Soviet power on the world stage. The war aggressions he makes have nothing to do with any notion that "democracy will save us".

I can list all the wars America has orchestrated and the measures of their destruction (though it sounds as though you might already agree, saving me the trouble), so what are you putting up against the war crimes of this 'democracy' to support the notion that veering from its political methodology is the most significant threat to peace? — Isaac

What does this have to do with anything I'm saying about Putin and Russia? Your argument is essentially: "because US is really bad, has been really bad and will probably be bad in the future... therefore we don't have to worry about Putin and Russia?" Do you understand why I think you are naive? You don't connect any dots in your premises.

What's 'naive' is assuming that the most powerful corporations and elites the world has ever seen are in any way held back by something as trivial as 'democracy'. — Isaac

Again, what are you talking about? What has this to do with the current geopolitical conflicts?

No one's saying Russia is innocent, but try speaking to the parents of the 700 children who just died from poverty whilst you were writing your post and see if they give a shit whose flag is over Donetsk and Luhansk. — Isaac

And speak to the parents of children who will die in a third world war if we don't do anything about lunatic aggressors making that scenario a possibility. Just because we're trying to fix one bad thing in the world does not mean we don't care about other bad things. The current "bad thing" about Putin and Russia is a critical one, a time-critical one, something that is progressing rapidly.

Are you actually saying that we shouldn't address what is happening at the moment because of starving people elsewhere? What about the thousands of people who will be killed if Putin does a full-scale invasion? What about if he doesn't stop there? What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? THIS is why you are naive, you don't understand what is really going on.

I spoke of a lunatic named Putin who wants to reclaim Soviet power on the world stage... What if he needs to fulfill the Soviet dream even further? — Christoffer

I wonder what it's like walking through the world thinking that it functions like an off-brand Marvel movie. Is he planning to wield the infinity glove after that?

First page. It doesn't shed much light on exactly what is happening now but it's worth looking at. — jamalrob

If one thinks that every bad event that happens in the World because of US policy, to think that this is happening ONLY because of NATO enlargement will seem reasonable. Yet then you shut your eyes on other facts (as some do here).

Starting from the obvious: Do notice what actually Putin is saying, repeatedly and constantly. For years now, but quite clearly repeating especially now. As you said yourself, it's odd. I agree.

That Ukraine is an artificial country. Of the ties Ukraine has to Russia. How all of the borders were only decisions (basically wrong ones) made by Lenin and Khrushchev. And do note the annexations. Not just military strikes, not just taking possible out the leadership and hopefully having a more friendly one put there, but actual territorial annexations, territory made Russian.

Ask yourself: If this would be just about the threat they perceive from NATO and NATO enlargement, would Putin be talking what he is talking and making territorial claims and annexations?

You see, if the US went all ballistic (even close literally going ballistic) when Russia positioned nuclear weapons to Cuba and was very close to invading Cuba, do note the difference. What do you make of it if JFK then would have said that Cuba was "artificial country" and had these ideas how Cuba and the US belong together? Last time US policy was similar to Putin's was in the 19th Century towards his northern and southern neighbors. And even if the first Cuban president was an US citizen, Cuba wasn't made part of the US, but an independent country where the US obviously had a say. Yet Crimea is a part of Russia, and that difference should be noted.

There actually is a lot of hopeful thinking in that Putin's actions are just a response to NATO enlargement. It is, of course, one reason, clearly stated as the number 1. threat in the Russian Military doctrine, but one should look at what Putin is actually doing. And this is why it's actually Putin that is creating a self-enforcing vicious circle, which just increases the fear of what his actual objectives are and where he will stop.

An attempt at calm assessment is greeted with demands for condemnation etc. It's a waste of time. — jamalrob

It's clear that you haven't read this thread. Calm assessment have mostly been met with attempts to lay blame on the US and NATO without any details as to how that's supposed to work.

And you don't have to have any political sympathies to condemn military aggression. All you have to do is think about all the lives that will be destroyed. To those who were busy thinking about economic concerns rather that effects of an invasion of now 190,000 soldiers:

shame on you.

Side-note: Rolls Royce Small Modular Reactors. — Wayfarer

Cool. China is working on fusion too. Hope they get it working soon.

Couldn't Russia just join NATO? :D

Couldn't Russia just join NATO? :D — jorndoe

I remember very vividly in a presentation when a German military attache to Finland said right to my face in the mid 1990's that this was a possible option. Other Finns in the room smiled.

That was the reality in back then...when that NATO enlargement was going on.

I wonder what it's like walking through the world thinking that it functions like an off-brand Marvel movie. Is he planning to wield the infinity glove after that? — StreetlightX

If that's not a strawman I don't know what is.

What's it like walking through the world thinking we are immune to historical destructive events? Ignorance is bliss I guess. "Might not happen" does not mean "we shouldn't act". The worst-case scenario global climate problems "might not happen" so "we shouldn't act" upon it. WWIII "might not happen, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it. Ukraine "might not" be invaded and thousands of people being killed while thousands more need to flee to other countries, so "we shouldn't act" to prevent it.

Question: Do you believe Putin will stop after a successful invasion and occupation of Ukraine? If not, what do you think the next step would be? What would you think is going to happen in Europe if he continues? How do you think international relations, trade, diplomacy, energy politics and so on, will be affected if Putin does that?

I mean... he "might not", so "why bother".

Your having an overactive imagination doesn't seem like very good grounds for international politics.

Your having an overactive imagination doesn't seem like very good grounds for international politics. — StreetlightX

Explain to me why I should engage in such low-quality posts as this?