Today... that's the argument. — Christoffer

Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups (the "American Indians") in order to advance its objectives, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries (Korea, Vietnam) which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which continually interfered in and manipulated a host of governments of sovereign countries within its own percieved "sphere of influence" (Latin America) to the point of assassinating heads of state (Allende in Chile), but today it is not.

Thanks for explaining.

Why does Russia get to tell a sovereign nation what alliances to be a part of? I am sorry, I didn't understand that part... All I see is anti-West gaslighting about this issue here instead of actually answering the question at hand.

Streetlight: Characterize the boogie-man "West' as bad/evil...thus...Putin is at least just as bad as the West, and there are no good actors..

But that is not the real question. The real question is about sovereignty.. Ukraine being able to make its own decisions without foreign interference.. Sovereignty is only illegitimate if it comes with things like taking away people's rights to speech and voting, or ethnic cleansing, and things such as this.. All things that Putin himself actually does. So your odd defense of Putin here doesn't make any sense.

:yawn:

Christoffer likes to pretend he's a grown up. I'm sure he doesn't need another idiot defending him.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical.

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues.

So yes, Frank, ragging is entirely appropriate when posts are simply that shit.

So your odd defense of Putin here doesn't make any sense. — schopenhauer1

If you construed that as a defense of Putin then please know that I don't reply substantively to illiterates.

:100:

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts!

Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not.

Thanks for explaining. — Joseph Zbigniewski

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis.

And no, that's not NATO today.

I'm talking about a probability factor for the world as it is today. If you mix history in a blender you can get whatever result you want, or that supports your thesis. — Christoffer

Cue him stacking the premises in such a way until you agree that the only correct answer can be the US. Never mind history and facts! — Benkei

@ssu

I just want to highlight that this is the third time I correctly predicted the future.

It literally doesn't matter. Not one bit. Not one iota. Russia told NATO to fuck right off, and NATO did the exact opposite of that, in full cognizance of multiple people in the West telling them that this is a terrible, awful, war-engendering move and lo and behold, and now there's a war. This isn't an issue of morality or law or principle, it's a simple calculation - do you do the thing that the weaponized, nuclear aggressor literally just told you to not do, on pain of war, yes or no? NATO - and again, not just NATO but the EU in general - answered the question with a 'yes'. When you make a decision knowing the consequences of that decision, that's what people call responsibility. Putin is an aggressor and if he dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. But this white knighting for an institution which looked at war in the face and said 'yep, we'd like a bit of that thanks' - and now gets a war - is totally, absolutely culpable for dead Ukrainians. When you fly straight into the fucking sun and die, you don't get to excuse yourself because the sun was hot.

Putin's war is unjutified and unjustifiable. But acting in full cognizance of the deadly results of an unjustified demand does not let you off the hook. Again, world politics does not work like Harry Potter. Actors don't need their stories to line up, for the sake of your narrative ease-of-mind.

Literally every single one of your questions are irrelevant. — StreetlightX

Oh yeah poor poor NATO, total victims in this situation, maybe organize a cookie bake for them out of solidarity.

Look, literally none of your moralizing matters. Not one bit. What matters are consequences. And the consequences of NATOs actions, justified by whatever bit of feel-good post-hoc rationalizations, have led, concretely, to a war. No one cares if Russia has 'rights' to do what it does, or if Ukraine happens to fit NATOs bureaucratic criteria, of if NATO is normatively justified in doing what they did. Completely, utterly irrelevant. Russia's feelings are not NATOs fault. NATO acting in full cognizance of those feelings are. — StreetlightX

You can't get angry at Ukraine for making decisions of a sovereign nation. The culpability is purely on Russia itself for attacking another country because it didn't do what it wanted.

no, that's not NATO today. — Christoffer

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation.

You can't get angry at Ukraine — schopenhauer1

Again, please learn to read past a 2nd grade level thanks.

Again, please learn to read past a 2nd grade level thanks. — StreetlightX

I have, and I see the ridiculous argument you are trying to thread.. A second grader can see that.

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation. — Joseph Zbigniewski

I sympathize with your points about treating the Eastern European nations as literally "second world (class)" citizens. However, I don't understand how this sentiment thus justifies Putin's actions here.

The problem here is the infantile "Putin bad" "NATO good" narrative or worse, the idea we can somehow "trust" the US to do better than the Russians, when the whole point of my comments on this thread has been that NATO and the US are not trustworthy at all and knowingly escalated tensions right up to war. — Benkei

Way to strawman my arguments. And also totally miss the points I've been making. But it's ok, I have realized that you don't care so there's no point in trying to explain my points.

But you, and others, apparently think it's fine to play chicken with human lives at stake, because, hey, they're just Ukrainians! To then shed fucking crocodile tears for Ukrainians without looking our own complicity straight in the eye is a fine example of self-delusion. The inability by posters like Christoffer to even slightly start to display some understanding of this after over 50 pages, deserves scorn for either the wilful idiocy it reflects or malice otherwise. — Benkei

Are we playing chicken with people's lives when they not only want survival but also freedom? You ok with them living under the boot? Maybe listen to what the Ukrainians say themselves instead of speaking for them like if you were appointed speaker to their needs.

Maybe you are just frustrated that there's another perspective in all of this that doesn't comply with your own. Maybe this is because I live in a totally other security situation where Russian planes are actually breaking our airspace as we speak. So maybe you don't know as much as you believe.

Fucking children think this is a Idols contest where we are to choose who we trust more. As if trust has any fucking relevance in an arena with real politik players. It's irrelevant as much as it is stupid but entirely in accordance with his predisposition that obviously makes him entirely incapable of being critical. — Benkei

More strawmanning. And more cursing. And more attitude problems.

Who made you a mod? Seriously, who signed off on that?

I can have perfectly civil disagreements but not with ideologues. — Benkei

And I can't have civil disagreements with people who are neither civil nor care for anyone else perspective other than their own.

The problem is that I've asked so many times for clarifications on subjects and counter-arguments and whatever, but I never get them, I never get a logical deduction when I ask for it, I never get anything that sticks together rationally. All I get from you and others are ill-conceived loosely put together opinions (just as ideological as you blame others for) and when I continue to explain myself in detail after detail while asking for more from others, I just have to stand getting called childish, ideologue and whatever other bullshit you can come up with.

And since you are a mod, there's no point in flagging your posts. It's almost a kind of exercise in authoritarian politics trying to.

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation. — Joseph Zbigniewski

Do things change over time? Can you prove that something has stayed exactly the same over time?
Look at a map of NATO in 1949. The US has lots of influence. Look at a map of NATO in 2022. The US has less influence. All countries have a vote, the less nations, the more your vote is worth. So, yes, NATO is not the same today and NATO is not the US, whatever people think about it.

...I don't understand how this sentiment thus justifies Putin's actions here. — schopenhauer1

The point is that neither the U.S. nor NATO, which takes dictation from the U.S., can be trusted by Russia (which has always been cited as an "adversary" by the U.S.) to be "bona fide" actors. History has shown us how the U.S. deals with its "adversaries" all over the world. Do you forget that Russia has been twice rebuffed upon expressing a desire to join NATO? (Molotov's proposal that the USSR join NATO in 1954, and Putin's expression of interest in the early years of this millenium). The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy, and was determined to have no rivals within the "alliance". Calling NATO a "defensive" military alliance verges on the facetious. It is a military alliance headed by a nation which has always called Russia its "adversary". We all know that a military, a "defense system", can be used in offensive ways with the purportion of "defense". With this in mind, can Russia allow itself to be "surrounded" or "invested" by NATO nations?

In support of my view of this, read here:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/why-nato-is-at-the-center-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/e02c8cbc-5357-40c2-a252-ba4d306b0ef1

the Biden administration did the right thing: It didn't do anything with it's nuclear forces. — ssu

Publicly. We have no clue really. — Benkei

I'd say it's unlikely.

Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication.

nor NATO, which takes dictation therefrom — Joseph Zbigniewski

The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy — Joseph Zbigniewski

So, how in practice does this work? If all nations who have joined NATO have a vote, equal say, how does the US control NATO? Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. And since many of my arguments depend on the notion that NATO is in fact an alliance and not controlled by a single nation, i.e the US, I am asking for clarification on this point. Since there's much talk of Sweden and Finland joining NATO, will we then be controlled by the US? Which would be the result of NATO being controlled by the US.

Can someone clarify this in some actual logic and evidence? I am genuinely asking here.

I'd say it's unlikely.

Think about it. Let's assume Biden would have gone to lower (meaning higher) defcon level. If Putin would notice that, you think he wouldn't say it? Nuclear weapons are basically used for communication. — ssu

And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? I don't think so. I think they're prepared for any and all contingencies including nuking Russia in retaliation.

The point being, of course, that as usual the official communication isn't the actual communication. Russia threatened and the US shrugged. It's a diplomatic "fuck you" to the Russians.

I also wonder why you, as a moderator, write such a post as the one you just did? — Christoffer

Seconded. The role of moderators doesn't involve insulting other posters. @jamalrob should know better than that.

So, how in practice does this work? [...] Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. — Christoffer

What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings) I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of.

It's just that our politicians are very afraid of that choice because of Sweden's long tradition of "neutrality" (questionable during WWII, but whatever) — Christoffer

Actually, that has totally passed. Sometime long periods can come finally to a halt even in the history of Sweden. For both of our countries, being non-aligned or neutral isn't an option. Because our countries simply aren't neutral anymore, starting from being EU members, which as an union has clearly taken the side of one and not the other.

Think of it, your country and mine are totally are both arming the country that Russia is fighting. We already have had NATO exercises. It's a done deal. Now just think of that from the Cold War perspective. You think Sweden would be neutral during the Cold War if it had held exercises with NATO back then, with B-52's simulating in helping to mine Swedish coastal waters? Or when Soviet Union attacked Afghanistan (yes, it was an attack), that Thorbjörn Fälldin (then the current Prime Minister) would have responded by sending weaponry starting with anti-tank weapons to the mujaheddin?

It's over.

For us know, our countries security policy, which didn't even change so much when the Soviet Union collapsed, is changing now at a breathtaking speed.

What I'm anticipating is that the Finnish leaders are basically trying to get a bilateral defence agreement with the US.

Tomorrow.

You see, the topic of the meeting is "the effects of the war on the European security order, and bilateral cooperation between Finland and the United States." Now what do you think that bilateral cooperation would be now with Finland and the US? To fund environmentally friendly co-ops projects? Bilateral cooperation in Climate Change? I don't see how. So what bilateral there is for the US to do with an EU member like Finland. But let's see how it goes.

This is the time when little, total expendable countries like ours, have to be extremely quick in their reactions or they end up like Ukraine is now in the worst case. We truly are (again) living historical times, my friend.

* * *
Just to make my point, here is a discussion of the situation with an ex-Prime Minister of Finland. Interesting interview, he predicts (correctly) the change in NATO membership polls, but notice when at (2:02) the interviewer asks about Finnish being militarily neutral his response. That is telling:



There's three options for both of us:

1) join NATO / have a modified defence treaty (bilateral/trilateral...)
2) Finlandize and try to wiggle then under Putin's sphere of influence
3) war.

As Putin has his troops in Ukraine, it's a good time to move. Of course I might be wrong, but what is sure the drama won't stop now.

@et al It won't interest anyone outside of the small circle of opera lovers, but... Never mind nukes. Anna Netrebko, very big-name Russian diva, just got kicked out of the Metropolitan Opera in New York for her continuing loyalty to Putin--probably permanently. A joint project with the Bolshoi was also dropped.

The line it is drawn, the curse it is cast
the first one now will later be last Bob Dylan

New York and London oligarchs and kleptocrats have been happy enough to have Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats buy the high up high end real estate they have built. The upper reaches of these properties are beyond the means of the normally rich, let alone the merely prosperous and barely getting by. I wouldn't object to the seizure of these assets and then used for some public purpose.

And more cursing. And more attitude problems. — Christoffer

And since you are a mod, there's no point in flagging your posts. — Christoffer

No one flagged this (or any of your other outbursts) and I didn't mod you for bad language because it's politics.

Should just not give a shit about any of that? What's your fucking solution?
...
So bend down and get fucked. — Christoffer

So, stop being a hypocrite please. If you can dish it out, you're going to have to take it.

What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. — Joseph Zbigniewski

For which we have no real evidence I presume? No witnesses? No leaked documents? No whistleblowers? If nothing of that, how is this a valid premise?

It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. — Joseph Zbigniewski

You have two slopes or valleys with two big rocks at the bottom. How do you prove that both rocks rolled down the same mountain and not from two mountains opposite to each other?

What I mean by that is that just because you see a correlation between NATO and the US, doesn't mean it is controlled by the US. It can also mean that after WWII, much of the interest of each nation in Europe, west of the wall primarily, had similar interests due to the consequences of the war and following cold war. The collaboration between the initial nations fell in line with each other, i.e they fell from different mountains into the same valley. The following expanse of NATO also naturally follows different nations that are closer to the majority of those nation's political and cultural forms.

So, each nation is a different mountain in the same mountain region, but the valley is the same. Most nations who want to join NATO wouldn't do it if the majority of the nations in NATO had vastly different political aspirations. The stability comes from all member nations having similar political philosophies.

Just because NATO and the US seem to correlate with each other, doesn't mean that US controls NATO. It more or less means that the US and the member states of NATO, A) had it easier to find agreements with each other due to similar political philosophies and B) New members had it easier to join because they had similar political philosophies.

If 30 nations are members and most of them share similar political philosophies, i.e they are similar to the US, does that mean that the US controls NATO, or that NATO as a whole consists of nations with similar concerns as the US?

Just seeing a correlation isn't evidence without looking at the details of such a correlation.

Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! — Joseph Zbigniewski

Since the previous premies above aren't conclusive in logic, then pinpointing corrupt politicians in the US does not follow. Yes, there's corruption, no, the US hasn't been proven to control NATO, it is 1 of 30 members.

I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of. — Joseph Zbigniewski

NATO does not act in defense of a nation that isn't a member state is a more possible explanation, since the US has not been proven to control NATO.

Again, I ask for actual support, evidence, deduction that the US is in direct control of NATO. That 29 nations in NATO have no say and just do as the US tells them to do.

I have yet to hear any such things. I only hear the same thing as numerous times before "we all know..." or "All of the evidence is behind closed doors..."
That doesn't sound like evidence to me, that sounds like conspiracy theories.

Give me some actual logic and evidence here.

Do you forget that Russia has been twice rebuffed upon expressing a desire to join NATO? (Molotov's proposal that the USSR join NATO in 1954, and Putin's expression of interest in the early years of this millenium). The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy, and was determined to have no rivals within the "alliance". Calling NATO a "defensive" military alliance verges on the facetious. It is a military alliance headed by a nation which has always called Russia its "adversary". We all know that a military, a "defense system", can be used in offensive ways with the purportion of "defense". With this in mind, can Russia allow itself to be "surrounded" or "invested" by NATO nations? — Joseph Zbigniewski

Ok, BOTH sides were not really committed to having Russia be in NATO. Russia would have to conform to a bunch of standards it has never really had to try to live up to, as far as democratically and militarily. This would hamper their ability to have a strongman-led government and to militarily control territories in their sphere of influence. So, no this isn't just a West rebuffing thing..

Also, look at what you are implying here. Your implication that a defense can be used as an offense is all based on the notion of a zero sum game. That is to say, NATO's win is Russia's loss. Why? Well, Russia wants to go back to being its own hegemon with various territories under its influence. But this flies in the face of the fact that nations are sovereign and can make their own decisions. Thus, even if Russia wants to be an influence on Ukraine, if Ukraine rather align more with other countries on various trade agreements etc. that is their right. Russia doesn't have a say in this.

No one flagged this (or any of your other outbursts) and I didn't mod you because it's politics. — Baden

I flagged all his posts that didn't follow the rules of this forum. I guess my example of authoritarianism paid off if those flags were removed by him. And I'm fine with cursing, I do it all the time. But only cursing out insults as the entirety of a post without anything else is what I'm turning against. A spam of posts without any substance other than a fuck you to me.

So, stop being a hypocrite please. If you can dish it out, you're going to have to take it. — Baden

Oh, how you put that out of context. A wonderful way to spin the narrative. You could expand those to show the entire sentence instead, especially the one about "bending down", here's the actual text:

Generally I imagine one deals with nuclear weapon threats by not poking a fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye. That's just me though.
— StreetlightX

So bend down and get fucked. You're an inspiration to the world.

I guess the lack of question mark was an error on my part. I guess that it meant no one could understand that I was referring to "not poking the fucking nuclear weapon bear in the eye" as "So bend down and get fucked?"

If you look closely you can see what I mean there.

Anyway, whatever, what's the point in explaining myself.

Gergiev was fired from the Rotterdam philharmonic orchestra as well.

And we need to have lower defcons to push buttons to launch nukes? — Benkei

Actually yes.

Well, if there would be a surprise attack that somehow would exceed so absurdly well to wipe out all the bombers and missile silos (or mobile launhers when it come to Russia), I guess then the ICBM submarines would launch their retaliatory attack when they would notice that their home country isn't anymore.

If the deterrence is failing, then you do need lower defcons. History shows that. The US has gone to Defcon two a few times. Last time it was during 9/11. Nobody of course was threatening them with nukes, but what else could they do to show that "they defend".

You see nobody just out of the blue launches some nukes. Above all, they are far more for the show. Because nobody, I mean nobody, is intending to use them as just very powerful explosives.

Even that "escalate to de-escalate" is also for political purposes. Then likely low-yield weapons or nuclear tests are used.

I admit I stopped reading your posts in detail and saw that as being as it was written without the question mark. I understand what you meant now but that I didn't delete it stands to illustrate that we tend to allow that type of thing in these types of threads. I stopped reading your posts in detail btw because they appeared to lack substance. I think some of the insults here are saying the same thing, but in less diplomatic language. It would be nice if we could all be nice, I agree.

Thank you. But I recommend actually reading them, or rather that the ones I discuss with do it since it sometimes seems like people read one sentence and then don't care before answering. My answer to Joseph Zbigniewski above is an example of what I'm criticizing, I've been saying the same things many times before, but that's a better run through.

I'm asking for substance, just as you seek in mine. And all the frustrating posts from me may be from the frustration of never getting that substance when I ask for it. So I just post my argument again and again trying to explain what I mean in the context of someone's ill-explained argument. I just think that asking for a logical and evidence-based argument about NATO is crucial before posting some opinions about NATO and Russia. Most things I read in here read as conspiracy theories... but I get the blame for lacking substance?