:100:

You see, the smartest thinkers not only saw that NATO expansion would get the Russian Bear angry. They also saw the obvious imperialism aspirations that Russia has too. Especially when it came to Ukraine. — ssu

Okay?

Again. Just more presentation of the alternate possibility that the US were barely involved and opposed to the far-right elements.

Can we just save ourselves loads of time here.

I'm aware of that possibility and accept that it is entirely plausible. There's no need to keep spending your (no doubt precious) time explaining exactly how it is plausible. I already agree that it is.

What I'm asking you (fifth time now) is why, given the two plausible scenarios, you seem to think it vitally important that the one in which the US are innocent is given such representation and the one in which America is culpable is swiftly countered at every mention. That's the key point here.

How about then reading what for example John Mearsheimer so well said far earlier: — ssu

John Mearsheimer in 2014

the United States and its European allies
share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too.

The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four vhigh-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists. Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup

Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a bu*er state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

So which is it? Is Mearsheimer an expert whose greater knowledge we should defer to, or not?

Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd.

Clear and succinct summary, thanks. — Amity

You're very welcome. It should also be understood that the conditions for the possibility of such naked military aggression were to an important degree the responsibility of the West. Ensuring peaceful relations and partnerships with Russia in its recovery after 1991 was the most important task for the big powers at the time. It was possible, but they failed, and continued to fail in the same way as the decades went by, despite the many voices warning them they were taking the world in a dangerous direction. See Street's post above.

And if you really are implying that @Christoffer is not "playing out Top Gun fantasies", I think you need to look again at his posts.

The number of influential and knowledge people in the West who understood that what the West was doing would lead to fucking tragedy, is mind boggling — StreetlightX

That was interesting. A fair amount of that criticism was from the 1990s when American politicians were still thinking in terms of the cold war. I think the cold war permanently shaped those people.

The cartoon effect obscures understanding on both sides.

A fair amount of that criticism was from the 1990s — frank

??

Kissinger - 2014
Mearsheimer - 2015
Chomsky - 2015
Cohen - 2014
Pozner - 2018
Burns - 2008
Frazer - 2014
Gates - 2015

I stopped scrolling beyond that for this.

You didn't see the ones from the 1990s?

If by 'a fair amount' you mean 'a minority' then sure, I saw them.

My point was that expansion of NATO started in the 1990s with a cold war mentality. Inertia carried it forward into the 21st Century.

That seems naïve to me. As if the US and Europe do not have active and ongoing imperialist interests apart from some kind of leftovers from the 1990s. That you had to literally falsify a simple count - or more charitably, you read into it what you wanted to see - to make your point speaks to this as well.

So you guys have sorted it out yet? Can we say at long last that all this blood is on Obama's and Clinton's head? Because you see, that thought helps me sleep at night, while Ukrainians get bombed...

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth stems from overestimating US power. It's a form of fetish, an illusion of omnipotence that anglo-saxons are often subject to these days; well, those who still live in the fifties.

Not so long ago Putin managed to install his own extreme-right nationalist puppet not in Kiev but in Washington, DC... It lasted for four long years, and the puppet may come back. That is the extent of US power today: they don't even get to chose their president, sometimes; some Russian autocrat will chose for them.

Keep flogging your backs. It's entertaining.

if the US and Europe do not have active imperialist interests apart from some kind of leftovers from the 1990s — StreetlightX

I don't think Europe or the US has ever seen central Europe as some great prize. I think at least one element of encroachment in Russia's sphere was fear of Russia on the one hand and belief that free markets and democracy would help them on the other.

When Putin became a dictator, anti-feminist and homophobic, it deepened the mistrust.

It's one element of what happened anyway.

It is also the case that you literally counted wrong, or simply made a false statement. — StreetlightX

Sorry. I was actually thinking that Kissinger and Chomsky remember the Cuban missile crisis. My thoughts came out muddled.

So you guys have sorted it out yet? Can we say at long last that all this blood is on Obama's and Clinton's head? — Olivier5

Someone said that if you read comments from the Chinese Pinks you'd think the US just invaded Ukraine.

Ha. Brilliant.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth — Olivier5

Putin managed to install his own extreme-right nationalist puppet not in Kiev but in Washington — Olivier5

I'll just leave that there, further comment being unnecessary I think.

I'll just leave that there, further comment being unnecessary I think. — Isaac

What?

Someone said that if you read comments from the Chinese Pinks you'd think the US just invaded Ukraine. — frank

And you can thank Obama for that! ;-)

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth stems from overestimating US power. It's a form of fetish, an illusion of omnipotence that anglo-saxons are often subject to these days; well, those who still live in the fifties. — Olivier5

This.

I think that those criticizing American exceptionalism by blaming the US for everything are unintentionally being the ones believing in American exceptionalism the most themselves.

And you can thank Obama for that! — Olivier5

Yep.

Thank Obama for COVID, too! ;-)

I don't think Europe or the US has ever seen central Europe as some great prize. — frank

Mm, a great prize or no, the aim of market creation and neoliberalization (i.e. privatization, austerity, destruction of workers rights and security) - which is not just an 'aim' but something actively happening and continuing to happen in Central Europe - is high up on the agenda. Very few people have been talking about Ukraine's opening up of it's agriculture to foreign capital, and how, in Michael Roberts' words, institutions like the World Bank were "positively drooling at this opening up of Ukraine’s key industry to capitalist enterprise: [quoting the WB]: 'This is without exaggeration a historic event, made possible by the leadership of the President of Ukraine, the will of the parliament and the hard work of the government'."

And this to say nothing about 'structural adjustment' in Central European countries like Romania, Estonia and Latvia, praised to high heaven by neoliberals in the EU; or the glee that the US must now feel about European energy dependence about to swing evermore to the West; or the weapons manufacturers who will can only be overjoyed at Germany's $100b rearmament, moving from 7th to 3rd in the world ranking of armed states.

And speaking of 'free markets and democracy', let's not forget how anglo neolib 'shock therapy' was directly responsible for Russia being shitty country it is today:

But the fucking clowns above me would rather just talk about how Putin Bad herp drep, more war pls, leave the poor, poor, US alone. Didn't realize these people like the taste of Empire's boots so much that they'd deepthroat them every chance they got.

But the fucking clowns above me would rather just talk about how Putin Bad herp drep, more war pls. — StreetlightX

Axiom number 1: It's ALWAYS Obama's fault.

Axiom number 2: When it's not Obama's fault, refer to axiom number 1.

Axiom number 3: No matter what happens, it is NEVER the fault of someone located east of the Don.

Axiom number 4: It's not even worth discussing because those disagreeing are FUCKING CLOWNS.

You know how you know you're a fucking pscyho? When you make an 'axiom' out of a person who was never once even mentioned in the post you're replying to. Maybe consider that your insane projections are yours alone.

"Thanks Obama!"

This is what I hear. The same old same old anthem from the US right.

It's either that or the US left equivalent: "It's all on Reagan".

Either way, it is a form of hubris.

Sure, if one looks for causes, they are dozens of them. In my mind, the single most impactful error made by the US that capacitated Putin to do this, was to illegally invade Iraq in 2003. If the US can invade Iraq without a UN blessing, Russia can invade Ukraine. Or try to...

frank

Mm, a great prize or no, the aim of market creation and neoliberalization (i.e. privatization, austerity, destruction of workers rights and security) - which is not just an 'aim' but something actively happening and continuing to happen in Central Europe - is high up on the agenda. — StreetlightX

But that stuff comes from neoliberal think tanks. The average American senator voting for mitary aid to Ukraine or Poland doesn't understand any of that. At least I don't think they do.

I'm just saying the cold war made its mark.

Very few people have been talking about Ukraine's opening up of it's agriculture to foreign capital, and how, in Michael Roberts' words, institutions like the World Bank were "positively drooling at this opening up of Ukraine’s key industry to capitalist enterprise: [quoting the WB]: 'This is without exaggeration a historic event, made possible by the leadership of the President of Ukraine, the will of the parliament and the hard work of the government'." — StreetlightX

Yes. And I think once that happens to Ukraine, Russia is next target. I wasn't denying that. I just meant that there are prejudices that facilitate neoliberal exploitation.

And speaking of 'free markets and democracy', let's not forget how anglo 'shock therapy' was directly responsible for Russia being shitty country it is today: — StreetlightX

I think Putin overcame the 1990s pretty well. Free markets did help them recover from the Soviet collapse.

I think their energy relationships with Europe will be normalized quietly when this is over.

The average American senator voting for mitary aid to Ukraine or Poland doesn't understand any of that. At least I don't think they do. — frank

Mm, and who do you think the think tanks think for exactly? American Senators are not paid to understand. They are paid to implement policy.

I think Putin overcame the 1990s pretty well. Free markets did help them recover from the Soviet collapse. — frank

To become the crony capitalist state it is today? Not convinced by that.

The Russian economy is a ‘one-trick’ pony, relying mostly on energy and natural resources exports. After a short boom from rising energy prices from 1998 to 2010, the economy has basically stagnated. Although Russia’s economy is larger than it was in 2014 in real terms, final domestic demand is still at its pre-2014 level. And cumulative GDP growth over this period was only positive because exports were 17% higher in real terms in 2019 than in 2014. Russia’s capital stock is still lower in real terms compared to 1990, while the average profitability of that capital remains very low.

https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2022/02/27/russia-from-sanctions-to-slump/

And if you really are implying that Christoffer is not "playing out Top Gun fantasies", I think you need to look again at his posts. — jamalrob

Yes, there are a few posts where Christoffer answered questions as to solutions to end this war.
A dream of sorts that flies as gung-ho in the face of his more usual attitude and presentation.

However, my main point was @Isaac generalising to 'people' and the 'Western media':

The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict.
— Isaac

Again and again, you misrepresent. You choose an opponent, like Christoffer as an example of 'people playing out Top Gun fantasies...' calling this a 'tragedy'. — Amity

This kind of war of words is not helpful. The tragedy is not here...

Well, I thought that comment of Isaac's was fair, and not unprovoked, but what do I know?

The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. — Isaac

This story is as old as the hills it seems. American forces fought in the Russian Revolution. Maybe they lost.

https://www.rferl.org/a/when-american-soldiers-fought-a-war-in-russia/30410353.html

Well, I thought that comment of Isaac's was fair, and not unprovoked — jamalrob

Interesting opinion of yours. Mine is that the real tragedy is in bombing people, and that western media are not doing that -- they just talk. That some people talk is not a tragedy in my book. But what do I know?

frank

Mm, and who do you think the think tanks think for exactly? American Senators are not paid to understand. They are paid to implement policy. — StreetlightX

It's one little US government and a whole world to exploit. It's all much more dynamic and rough than you're making it out to be.

And this brings me back to my central rant core:

If we're going to nod and say we understand why Putin just created half a million refugees and warn that villainizing him obscures the truth, you can't in the same breath villainize the US.

If you're committed to understanding, then fucking try to understand.

There isn't a Neoliberal Mastermind somewhere telling the US government what to do. There are specific reasons the US's embedded liberalism gave way to neoliberalism and one of the factors was that American leftists tripped over themselves into failure. They handed victory to their opponents with their arrogant stupidity. So we could just as easily blame them for the refugees as anyone else.

end rant.