At least Grozny seems reasonably stable (at the moment), as far as I know anyway. — jorndoe

Since the war, Russia has put a lot of money into Chechnya to re-develop it (Grozny, at least) and to enrich the local elite, thus buying the support of the Sufis (and their brutal leader Kadyrov, who earlier fought against Russia) and neutralizing the Salafist-led jihad, all to ensure Russian hegemony and stability in the North Caucasus.

Now, Grozny is a gleaming city with gigantic new mosques, and Chechen warriors are fighting for Russia in Ukraine and Syria.

So Putin bothers me as another sign that the wheels are coming off. — Srap Tasmaner

:up:

DITTO. :100:

Likewise, I'm also not ashamed to acknowledge that "I love my country" ... enough to live as much as I'm able to in critical opposition to its statist corporatism, keynesian militarism and white nationalist populism. As a Black American I'm stuck with America – just as America is stuck with me – struggling in solidarity with many others against both foreign and domestic oppressions to make the best, or at least better, of this unseverable bond. So ... Fuck Putin! Fuck our Grand Old Putin-Party! Viva Ukrainian & Russian peoples!

That's all interesting stuff, and you've been kind enough to answer the first half of my question. So I wonder if you'd perhaps consider the second.

For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated?

I can see why you'd be super keen on making sure everyone knew what a capricious madman Putin was. Right on your doorstep and with no massive military alliance to protect you, it must be scary, so you want the world to know what a threat he presents so they don't let him get away with it. I get that.

But I'm still not seeing any link to this passionate dismantling of any and all attempts to talk about the role the US, Europe and NATO have played in bringing this crisis about. After all, that narrative requires that Putin is an empire building madman. The whole crux of the 'US/NATO to blame' narrative is "If you knew all along that Putin was an empire-building madman, they why the fuck did you keep poking him with a big stick", so our two narratives would seem, on the face of it, to serve the same purpose. We should not be at odds at all. You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't.

Hence I'm confused as to why you'd want to remove US and Europe's culpability every time that narrative is put forward. I mean, looking back over the thread, you've expended more words on excusing the US than you have on warning us about Putin. I just want to know how excusing the US fits into your objective from that unique perspective you outlined.

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac

The purpose of the NATO expansion was surely always about the Russian threat, no?

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin.

I'm not blind to the problems of modern liberal capitalism, but at least it leaves some room to maneuver, to try and make something better. In the United States, for instance, there has always been some hypocrisy in our talk of freedom and equal rights; we all know that. But some of our talk, and our publicly stated beliefs, amounted to "fake it until you make it". — Srap Tasmaner

It's not an 'at least', it's a feature of the system. You see it as counterbalance to the rampant consumerism, but I see it as a counterpart. This is obviously not the place to go into a long discussion about capitalism, so I'll try to keep it relevant, but, as I see it, capitalism is involved in solving one problem and one problem only - how do we keep people buying stuff when it's clearly not in their best interests to do so. Labour saving devices, cool stuff like washing machines and cars, simply don't need replacing as fast as it's possible to have them replaced. New cool things simply aren't needed as frequently as it's possible to generate an artificial need for. Since everyone working as cogs in the machine only have their own job, their own promotion and their own wage packet to consider, they all simply do their jobs to the best of their ability, which means we're working to the 'possible', not the 'need'.

Anyway - to the relevance. Someone like Putin is just a part of that system. If everyone is just doing their job to the best of their ability, then Putin is doing 'mad dictator' to the best of his ability. So the question is why was there a 'mad dictator' job opening in the first place. Need there have been? I'm not talking about conscious conspiracy (though I've no concerns at all about invoking it, government intelligence services can and do interfere with foreign elections, there's no doubt about that). I'm just saying that rather than seeing Putin's tyranny as being opposed to liberal capitalism, we'd better understand it as one of the consequences

Matt Taibbi in his latest Substack post writes

I’ve been bitter in commentary about Putin in recent years because I never forgot the way the West smoothed his rise, and pretends now that it didn’t.

Given a country which is going to provide massive opportunities for corruption-ridden investments, a supply of oil which can be controlled by influencing a single person, and an almost permanent bogeyman to fuel the enormous arms industry (not how many tanks to we need, how many tanks is it possible for us to need) - what sensible capitalist government, doing its job, turning its cogs, is going to remove such a component?

Well, I think a certain degree of national pride or, at least, appreciation for one’s cultural heritage, isn’t a bad thing. — Apollodorus

As long as you can appreciate your neighbours' cultural heritage as commensurate to yours, I see no problem with that. And as long as you don't turn a blind eye to less glorious role your nation may have played.

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

Given a country which is going to provide massive opportunities for corruption-ridden investments, a supply of oil which can be controlled by influencing a single person, and an almost permanent bogeyman to fuel the enormous arms industry (not how many tanks to we need, how many tanks is it possible for us to need) - what sensible capitalist government, doing its job, turning its cogs, is going to remove such a component? — Isaac

Yep. The West has been happy to hand out golden passports to Russian oil and gas tycoons while using their money to prop up housing markets in order to sustain an global economy in terminal failure. People keep lamenting the fact that the Russians can't be fully sanctioned because of Europe's utter dependence on their gas and oil - i.e. Europe's dependence on these corrupt pieces of shit, including Putin, who may well be one of the richest people in the world thanks to European money dumped straight into his bank accounts, and now, now when it's inconvenient to them, Putin is suddenly a bad guy despite them literally paying him to be one for decades. "Liberal democracy" literally sustains itself off the back of corrupt thugs like Putin, which is why it finds it so hard to actually do anything about him when push comes to shove - because such pushing would push those self-same liberal democracies off a cliff as well. You're exactly right - it's not a matter of 'counter-point' - it is exactly as you said - counter-part.

Liberal capitalists have 'room to maneuver' because people in Russia - not to mention entire swathes of the planet - do not.

The purpose of the NATO expansion was surely always about the Russian threat, no? — jamalrob

Well, depends whose analysis you read.

No less a hawk than Tom Friedman wrote

The mystery was why the U.S. — which throughout the Cold War dreamed that Russia might one day have a democratic revolution and a leader who, however haltingly, would try to make Russia into a democracy and join the West — would choose to quickly push NATO into Russia’s face when it was weak. — Tom Friedman

and the architect of Russian containment George Kennan

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war, I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. — George Kennan

And Mary Elise Sarotte reminds us that

At a summit in Helsinki, Clinton promised to give Yeltsin four billion dollars in investment in 1997, as much as the U.S. had provided in the five years prior, while also dangling W.T.O. membership and other economic inducements. In return, Russia would effectively allow unencumbered NATO enlargement. Yeltsin worried that these measures could be perceived as ‘sort of a bribe,’ but, given Russia’s empty coffers and his uphill prospects for re-election, he relented.

All my own underlinings.

Russia were simply not a threat at the time of NATO expansion. They were crippled and crumbling further. NATO expansion was (according to these commentators, anyway) more a lazy ..."if you want..." attitude, with reckless little thought given to the provocation it would result in.

Were any of us absolutely honest, realistic, and totally non-delusional, we'd have to consider blowing our brains out forthwith. — Bitter Crank

Why? I trust we can be non-delusional about history without committing suicide. We can live without all these lies. We don't really need them. They are made up to make us feel good about our tribe, that's all.

Yeah, what people keep getting wrong about anti-capitalist thought is that it entails some kind of conspiracy, that aim is always taken at the puppet-master consciously planning to fuck the world over. But it's exactly the opposite. This is what a capitalist economy is, this is what happens when you just wind up the key and set it going.

Russia were simply not a threat at the time of NATO expansion. They were crippled and crumbling further. — Isaac

I think this is right. I just saw a tension between that and the following:

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac

So many heads up so many asses talking so much shit. The whataboutism by some on this thread is as intellectually masturbatory as it is morally delinquent. Morning in Kyiv, gents, and lots of Russian carnage of civilians is being served up; meanwhile, "it's all the fuckin' American's fault" ... Spasibo, fools. :shade:

just saw a tension between that and the following:

You're saying Putin's a threat, I'm saying yes, and if we knew this all along why the hell did we treat him as if he wasn't. — Isaac — jamalrob

Yeah, I see that. I think the idea is that the response should always be appropriate and defensive, and many feel that it has been unhelpful and provocative. If there's a person whose empire-building narrative is based on opposing the "military advance of the west", then 'the west' advancing its military might not be the best strategic response - out of all the other options we had. It's like they'd read the script for Putin's screenplay.

Well, if it's just Gotland and not Åland, I hope we do the same for you and come to help!

The unfortunate fact is that after few months, assuming the war takes so long, war in Ukraine will be "the new normal". After all, we just experienced a world wide pandemic. How scary would that have sounded before? Now it's not so scary anymore. — ssu

I think Åland and Gotland would be attacked first with ground troops under a heavy barrage of air strikes along the coast. I would really like to see Putin try and cross the eastern part of Finland, if he has logistical problems just driving on a normal road to Kiev, imagine going through the same parts of Finland that decimated the Soviet Union's attempts.

Also, our prime minister had a speech to the nation yesterday. We've already been increasing our military since 2015, but now we're pumping even more into it. I'm hoping to build out a, especially on Åland and Gotland, a modern high-tech anti-air system with AI. Technology is there and if we handle it smart we'll have an anti-air system that automatically recognizes foreign threats including missiles. With such a defense, it's next to impossible for Putin to invade since most of his effective strikes are long-range missiles and airstrikes. If he can't do that, he needs to send in troops, which are already proven to have low morale and being treated like shit, imagine them moving over eastern Finland and trying to manage a sea assault while we have our sub-marines (who single-handedly beat both NATO and the US in joint military exercises at sea)

If we get a defense up to high-tech standards, I'd like to see the fucker try.

For you (and@Christoffer if you like) with the unique interests and distance from US//NATO you so eloquently explained, why is it so important that the US/NATO be exculpated? — Isaac

First, separate NATO and US. The US is part of NATO, but NATO is its own entity. Otherwise you need to prove that NATO is being run by the US and not as an alliance, like UN, EU etc.

Second, I'm still waiting to hear what NATO's fault in all of this is. What is the actual threat to Russia? Through pages and pages of posts, I've yet to hear any concrete example of NATO actually threatening Russia. Free independent nations joining NATO who are close to Russia is not a threat. Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? And if not that as a "threat", then what? Have you any examples of when NATO threatened Russia and Putin? Because his feelings of being threatened can be valid for explaining his actions, but that doesn't mean there's valid guilt on NATO's part in any of Putin's actions.

Yup. It was a self fulfilling prophecy. Treat Russia as the enemy for decades and surprise surprise, we get war. I'm putting as much blame on the US and NATO as on Putin. — Benkei

What threats has NATO done to Russia? As in my answer to Isaac above, how would you argue for NATO's guilt in all of this, like if we were in court, how would you, in defense of Russia, argue for NATO's guilt? What did they do? Be specific

Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer

:clap:

We can't see the image
Try to upload the image at imgur, then share it with us through the BBC forum link provided to you.

I think the issue here is the model of NATO. Sometimes it seems to be only related towards USA. This is why some countries as Finland was sceptical about joining. We, the Western, do not have anything against the NATO but it is true they tend to use, hmm... propaganda about empowering the Western block.
As the European Commissioner Josep Borell said: "it is time to build an European army. But this principle is not necessary against NATO alliance,"

But only in the same dismal way as whistling in the dark. — Cuthbert

Thank you for this. I had to google up the expression. It's a good one, and I guess we all whistle in the dark on this thread, as loud as we can...

I think the issue here is the model of NATO. Sometimes it seems to be only related towards USA. This is why some countries as Finland was sceptical about joining. We, the Western, do not have anything against the NATO but it is true they tend to use, hmm... propaganda about empowering the Western block.
As the European Commissioner Josep Borell said: "it is time to build an European army. But this principle is not necessary against NATO alliance," — javi2541997

"It seems", but is it? I'm specifically asking for examples of operational practices that prove that NATO can be blamed for Putin's aggressive acts and killings. Even if the US sits in the background smiling an evil smile like a villain in shadows, what has NATO actually done to warrant being blamed for Putin's actions?

Almost every discussion in this thread boils down to NATO having guilt and the US having control over NATO. But I can't recall any direct link or evidence for any of that. If that can't be established first, then NATO can't be blamed in the way they're blamed. If Putin feels threatened, that does not warrant true guilt.

So the argument so far seems to be that we need to blame NATO because we all know that the US is bad and push evil capitalism so therefore NATO is bad and has guilt for Putin's actions. Essentially, we need to criticize NATO because we can't trust capitalism, we can't trust the US, and since the US is part of NATO, then we can't trust NATO, we can't trust anything they do, governments are corrupt, bad, everything is bad in the west... it all sounds like conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo. Stoned hippie circle jerk... "it's all caaaaapitalisms fault maaaaan".

How and when did NATO threaten Putin and Russia? A clear-cut question for all to answer. We need to establish that first.

How and when did NATO threaten Putin and Russia? — Christoffer

I personally think he felt threatened by NATO when a country close to him wants to be part of the alliance. This exactly happens with Georgia in 2008. It is true that expressly there is not a clear threat against Russia. But they feel like that because NATO is the western and for Russia these are always the enemies so they will never let satellite countries be part of it. It is sad but for Russia, countries like Ukraine or Georgia are just puppets to play with. They do not see it as sovereign states.
As we shared previously, Soviet nostalgia

I'm not here to give you a history lesson on what is entirely well-documented and regularly warned about since I was in university (1996).

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO?

This is not about law, it's about strategy spanning decades.

I personally think he felt threatened by NATO when a country close to him wants to be part of the alliance. This exactly happens with Georgia in 2008. It is true that expressly there is not a clear threat against Russia. But they feel like that because NATO is the western and for Russia these are always the enemies so they will never let satellite countries be part of it. It is sad but for Russia, countries like Ukraine or Georgia are just puppets to play with. They do not see it as sovereign states.
As we shared previously, Soviet nostalgia — javi2541997

And this is my point exactly. His feelings of a threat do not equal NATO actually threatening. Expanding security for nations, them joining to seek security for their nation, is not an active act of threatening Russia. Just as my house invasion analogy.

And how much do you blame the Dutch of the fighting that they took part from May 10th to May 14th 1940? — ssu

You should take a more holistic approach. What circumstances gave rise to someone like Hitler getting into power? Let's stop with the single cause fallacies.

Indeed, just because a bunch of insecure jerks say they feel threatened, doesn't make it true.

For instance, incompetent people often feel threatened by competent people, but I don't think we should protect the incompetent from the competent.

Your demand for explicit threats is inane. — Benkei

Why is it inane? Because you say so? Because it doesn't matter? Who decided that it doesn't matter if NATO threatened directly or not? If someone attacks you and the police ask you if you threatened the person and you just say... "that question for explicit threats is inane", do you think this is rational?

Why did NATO expand towards Russia, as opposed to say, Iran or China? There's your answer and the implicit threat it included. — Benkei

Is an expansion of a defensive alliance, through the will of each nation joining, an act of threat against Russia? "Perceived threat" in Russia does not mean anything, as per my house analogy.

For anyone with a modicum of knowledge about international relations this is obvious, which is why every expansion by NATO has been critised every step of the way in every Western country with independent policy institutes. — Benkei

Isn't this just a misunderstanding of all of it? Isn't it that the critique is about how fast expansion could trigger a response from Russia? Which is obvious both back with the Soviet Union and today's Russia. But that still isn't a threat to Russia. You can't blame NATO for "threatening" Russia because there have been no threats. The expansion itself is not a threat, you are just speaking of the perceived threat that Russia feels about the expansion. It's not the same thing.

During my studies I wrote an essay on how to create an economic interdependence between Russia and Europe ensuring lasting peace and true independence from US, creating a much safer European space than we have now. — Benkei

You mean like Germany tried and now failed through their Nordstream project? How does this comply with Putin's ideals? Can you ensure stability when Putin's ambitions come into conflict with Europe's?

The US and NATO decided precisely otherwise even though there were plenty of political scientists arguing for what I did. So we should ask, what benefit is there to the US having an insecure Europe? An excuse for military bases? A continued use for NATO? — Benkei

The US is part of NATO. How do you conclude that NATO, today, is being run by the US? Do you have a clear example of how NATO is being run with the US as the leader? This would mean that Jens Stoltenberg is just a puppet, that all other nations have no real say in the actions of NATO. All of this you have to provide some evidence for.

Otherwise, it just becomes your opinion. I understand the underlining geopolitical speculation, but if you can't connect that speculation to actual practices by these entities, it's just speculation.

And it's still impossible to blame NATO for Putin's actions. You can't just dismiss this as "inane" because it doesn't comply with your speculation. I take Sweden and Finland as an example again. We are both starting to gravitate towards joining NATO, not because of some vague US imperial and economic interest that we've been hypnotized by the evil villain of capitalism, but because of Putin's threats and the risk of Russia invading. Just yesterday Sweden announced a large increase in military spending and both nations are now putting the NATO option on the table.

So if we join NATO because we seek that security against Russia - Does that mean that NATO is actively threatening Russia?

The question is about blame and guilt. Is NATO to blame for Putin's actions? You say that asking for any clear threats or actions that are direct threats to Russia is inane, because that makes it easier to fit it in your narrative. I'm saying that it's not inane, because acts of increasing security against a perceived and now active threat do not equal guilt of threat to be on the part of those seeking security, regardless of speculations of intentions on the US part.

If you were in court, how would you prove NATO has guilt for Putin's actions? Why can't anyone answer this question? If Russia "feels" threatened by something that is not, in itself, an active threat, then there is no guilt or blame on NATO's part.

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

Once again my house invasion analogy:

Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack? — Christoffer

Once again my house invasion analogy:
Is hiring security for your house a threat to criminals who want to break in and therefore you are also guilty if they actually attack?
— Christoffer — Christoffer

No of course not. You can be guilty of attacking and you can be also guilty of not preventing an attack, for example leaving your door wide open. Or if you provoke them in some way.

My personal view is that provoking an attack only gives NATO more ammunition to continue 'containing' Russia.

I agree mostly with the article by John J. Mearsheimer. But he is out there in the cuckoo land of international politics when he suggests:

"The United States and its allies should abandon their
plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer" — John H. Mearsheimer

The United States will do no such thing, they like being the Superpower and won't let go. That is the problem. The nation that put men on the moon could bring peace on earth if they wanted to, but is that what they want?

It is a simple question, really, and no-one has answered it: who was responsible to prevent Russia invading Ukraine? The United Nations? Was Putin unstoppable? It has to be one or the other, if you have a third alternative I would like to hear it.