That is the sad truth. — ssu

This presentation by the Swedish ex Prime Minister about his time really trying to focus and help things when he was in office, is super insightful.



There's also an interesting exchange with a Ukrainian diplomat of some sort who lays out a bunch talking points.

Swedish ex-Prime Minister answers about the idea the gas transit fees "are being weaponized" is that they're a major source of corruption ... and more or less implying maybe it would actually help if they were no longer there!

Germany could have easily recycled Nord Stream 2 massive profits and better and cleaner economic development into EU programs to help Ukraine in a less corrupt way.

EU would have been better off, Russia would have better off, and even the Ukrainians (though perhaps not their politicians) would have been better off!

Which was the craziest part of that argument, all the rage in Western media at that time ... things need to be done less economically efficiently to "help" Ukraine?

Where were all the neo-liberal "nep-classical" economists on the air waves to lecture us on the mad Pareto Gains of doing things more efficiently and just compensating Ukraine for that. If only we had access to their wisdom then! This whole war could have been avoided! By capitalism 101, I keep on hearing so many great things about.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-23/putin-wants-hostile-states-to-pay-rubles-for-gas-interfax-says

Well this is interesting. Putin's done one better than preemptively cutting off gas. He's asking for gas payments in Rubles. He's trying to force the West to undermine their own sanctions if they want his goods. Gives credence to Michael Hudson's prediction that the war marks the beginning of the end of the US dollar hegemony:

For more than a generation the most prominent U.S. diplomats have warned about what they thought would represent the ultimate external threat: an alliance of Russia and China dominating Eurasia. America’s economic sanctions and military confrontation has driven them together, and is driving other countries into their emerging Eurasian orbit.... So I am somewhat chagrined as I watch the speed at which this U.S.-centered financialized system has de-dollarized over the span of just a year or two. ... I had expected that the end of the dollarized imperial economy would come about by other countries breaking away. But that is not what has happened. U.S. diplomats themselves have chosen to end international dollarization themselves, while helping Russia build up its own means of self-reliant agricultural and industrial production.

https://mronline.org/2022/03/08/america-shoots-its-own-dollar-empire-in-economic-attack-on-russia/

It doesn't require a politicised label. It's pretty much axiomatic that power serves power.

If there's one thing I'm learning is the breathtaking power of propaganda to force one to pick between two completely artificial positions - always aligned with power - as though they exhaust the field of the possible. — StreetlightX

:up:

To add to that, I don't see this as a "winnable" war. Everyone worth a shit has already lost and can only continue losing more the longer it persists, — Baden

You are of course right that no one can possibly win this war. The question now is more about who will lose the most, who will be crippled the longest.

You are of course right that no one can possibly win this war. The question now is more about who will lose the most, who will be crippled the longest. — Olivier5

By any measure that will always be the Ukrainians.

It's pretty much axiomatic that power serves power. — Baden

It's pretty much meaningless, but thanks for saying nothing.

We shall see.

Throwing sand in the air isn't going to work here. The evils of Western imperialisn are well known. But none of what you've presented is evidence of a NATO anti-Slav plot involving Zelensky. Instead of digging in, you'd be well advised to drop that clownish line and stick with some of your saner points.

Why don't you expound a bit on under which circumstances you see another party suffer more?

I can imagine nukes but I'd rather not. What other developments and circumstances do you think will viably lead to Ukraine having been shafted royally but where it will actually be another country who's bleeding out of its anus? Figuratively speaking of course.

I'm happy to take hits for poor explanations, but if you get absolutely nothing from what I and Street have just said, it's your loss, frankly.

By any measure that will always be the Ukrainians. — Benkei

This is honestly the most bizarre part of Western media "analysis" and the 6th (irrelevant) column of online partisans, that somehow the "humiliation" of Russia not winning on day 1 is not only comparable in harm, but actually more harmful, than millions of people sleeping in basements and subways for weeks, millions of refugees, cities being reduced to rubble, in addition to all the death and trauma.

People online are basically "we got'em".

Any insights on how the Italian and French diplomatic corps are looking at things? They're usually well informed and more independent thinkers than the British or Dutch.

No, but I'd agree with the sentiment, at least re the British (don't expect much from my own crowd either).

Which was the craziest part of the argument ... things need to be done less economically efficiently to "help" Ukraine? — boethius

The ideal solution according to the Biden camp would have been for Germany and other European countries to buy oil and gas from America. At higher prices than Russia's, of course.

Britain's clown-in-chief Boris Johnson even said that the Germans should "make a sacrifice in the interests of peace". Shows how easy it is to sacrifice other people's economies and boost America's and Britain's .... :smile:

A point of order: are we allowed to speak of anuses here? Because there's been a trickle of sexual terms coming from your side, re. @ssu and I "jerking off", etc. I am no prude but find such language rather disgusting when applied to people dying in war. Now, you're a mod, so if you use such sexual language, it would indicate that it is fine, right?

I can dish it out too, trust me. I'm French. Don't get me started.

But if you have a problem with a certain power, what's the alternative to applying a counter power? Isn't that pretty basic?

IOW, just being anti-power is pretty much the same as being suicidal, except it takes an application of power to follow through.

I'm happy to take hits for poor explanations, but if you get absolutely nothing from what I and Street have just said, it's your loss, frankly. — Baden

Indeed, your clichés are lost on me.

Any insights on how the Italian and French diplomatic corps are looking at things? — Benkei

Not from me, but I cannot recommend this thread enough:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1506116621500403725.html

In addition, check out his elaboration of (ex-French PM) Dominique de Villepin's understanding, which strikes me as utterly correct:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1505396482274304000.html

The importance of taking China into account of any analysis of what is going on is made startlingly clear.

Britain's clown-in-chief Boris Johnson even said that the Germans should "make a sacrifice in the interests of peace". Shows how easy it is to sacrifice other people's economies and boost America's and Britain's .... :smile: — Apollodorus

Although we are in total agreement here,

I agree with Baden's analysis of:

Throwing sand in the air isn't going to work here. The evils of Western imperialisn are well known. But none of what you've presented is evidence of a NATO anti-Slav plot involving Zelensky. Instead of digging in, you'd be well advised to drop that clownish line and stick with some of yoiur saner points. — Baden

I think it nevertheless worth explaining somewhat more for your and others benefit.

History is filled with conspiracies, but, although interesting to historians, most (if not all) historians will be happy to explain that those conspiracies had little affect.

For example, assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand was a successful conspiracy, and credited with triggering the events that started WWI, but at the same time most historians view the war as inevitable at that point and the trigger largely irrelevant.

Also of note, the "black hand" wasn't some great international conspiracy, but a relatively local organization of random violence, manipulated by people wanting to start the war ... so, if that didn't work they'd do something else.

Let's say the Sinking of the Lusitania was the US doing to get into WWI ... well, if that didn't work, they'd just do something else.

Likewise, if The Reichstag Fire wasn't set by the Nazi's they would have found some other excuse, lit something else on fire, or just waited for the next bad thing to happen to blame on the socialists, or then just done their plan without any event at all.

However, focusing on this historical minutia would be missing the forest for the trees. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler ... fascism was simply a popular movement and that's what brought about WWII, in conjunction with post-WWI policies that brought about the great depression.

In all these "start a war" cases, the policies are already decided by those in power and they're just looking for the pretexts: the choices are 1. just wait for a pretext (if there's all sort of random acts of violence happening anyways, then easy to just pick one), or 2. then make a pretext (conspiracy of some sort), or 3. then just do it anyways for reasons and no triggering event at all.

If a case about WMD's in Iraq couldn't be made, some other reason for invading Iraq would have been invented.

In short, definitely there have been conspiracies associated with immense political events such as starting world wars ... twice!

Conspiracies would matter a lot if option 2 was the only option available, but what people forget who focus on the events above as "the cause" of the bad things happening, is that if it wasn't option 2, it would be option 1 or 3.

There's pros and cons to each option ... and what actually matters is there's a power structure that wants to start a war or purge their political enemies, and can do it with immense support (enough to control society) even, for many, if there was no reason given at all than the other people are bad and we hate them!

What matters is the power, everything else is secondary.

The fact of WMD evidence being fabricated to start a war is totally secondary to the fact there's a small group of people that have the power to start a war in the first place and ... even if the reason is proven (by their own military institutions!) to be bogus, have the power to face no consequences about it anyways, just joke and laugh about "those WMD's gotta be somewhere".

Why the CIA folks love saying "the world is messy" and they don't have total control, is because it's true and it distracts from the structure of power and their part within it ... that maintains the disparity between the rich and the poor.

But it's not a conspiracy, it's simply everyone knowing their place: including most poor people.

Almost everything we see as "the serious politics" of the day is just smoke and mirrors, if people weren't "super concerned" with this, we'd be "super concerned" about something else. The war seems certainly "more serious" than usual, but, as has been discussed, there's been several ongoing wars no one cares about; why we care about this one is just part of the show.

People are dying, true, so easy to sell this is "big" ... but people are dying all the time in horrible ways, with far easier ways to help them than solve this mess in Ukraine. All those deaths aren't "big", but something that a lone intrepid journalists needs to go expose just to be ignored by mass media, because Ukrainian deaths today serve the power structure's already chosen policies (in the West, China and Russia), for different reasons and presented in different ways of course. As soon as the war is over and the deaths of these Ukrainians becomes inconvenient for the West, China and Russia ... we'll stop hearing about it, just as we stopped hearing about Afghanistan after literally a couple months after Afghani deaths became inconvenient rather than a call to arms to "defeat the hated enemy".

The power structure focuses our attention on the dead in Ukraine not because people have some intrinsic value, but because it distracts from all the rest, and that's pretty damn convenient right now. But if it wasn't the dead in Ukraine, it would be something else, and people would be just as emotional about it.

If you peer behind the curtain, you'll find it's just fun and games, laughing and partying between those that are in the party. What they do doesn't really matter, and between lines on a hookers ass crack things aren't thought out all that far and coherently (academia has an entire industry dedicated to re-interpreting the whims of the powerful as representing serious doctrines of some sort, but that's just part of the power structure), but it's why this party is happening in the first place and what keeps it going, that's what matters.

True, the power structure is sadistic, and so it is in fact giving it more credit to believe they exercise their sadism in secret, for they must be ashamed of it. But they aren't! They hide things only if it was more fun and adventurous that way, but if it's funner to just do it in the open to really feel how powerful they are, they have no hesitation.

Not that their stupid, they're just "normal people" as anyone who gets close to them informs us.

And, they do get serious from time to time. What's elites "getting serious" look like? After they blowup the banking system and bank cards are literally about to stop working and the party may actually end, then, for sure they get "serious". What do they do? They sit down and draft a single paper giving the banks unlimited money.

They don't, in their moment of tension and "bringing their best", finally create some giant tome of intellectual mastery, they just give themselves trillions of dollars with a single paper.

Which both explains why they don't need clever plans when they can just print money to fix the last disaster and create the next one, and why they have the power to begin with: the money.

I'm happy it illicits disgust because that's precisely the emotion you should be having when people are dying in war. My vulgarities are intended as functional. And I suggested you and frank find a log cabin. @ssu already has one for his savusauna.

Still curious what circumstances you think can realistically arise where Ukraine isn't the party that is worst off. Just going by the destruction in various cities seems difficult to reproduce elsewhere.

Not if you're the meat in that sandwich. I mean just to be concrete about it re the current situation: if the war continues, NATO can feel it's winning by bleeding and weakening Russia, which it sees as a strategic adversary; and Russia can feel it's winning by bleeding and weakening Ukraine, which it sees as the proxy of a strategic adversary. You see who the only consistent loser is in this picture? You can also apply this to within Ukraine itself; while everyone loses to some extent, the leadership may at least have the commiseration of cementing power, most of the rich and privileged have already probably escaped, and the lower rungs get to be the cannon fodder or collateral damage. No matter what level of conflict you look at, those who are more responsible for it and have more power tend to suffer less and vice versa and that's the axis along which 'side-taking' should be applied imo. But the prevailing narrative is one of polarisation: the simplistic 'who's the bad guy'? 'who's the good guy'? which tends to support continued conflict and suffering among those who deserve it least. I don't want to be cheerleading that.

You could have just asked for a better explanation, but ok.

Maybe Benkei isn't getting any, so he keeps fantasizing about you and I. I guess he swings in multiple directions.

I hope so. :love:

Not if you're the meat in that sandwich. I mean just to be concrete about it re the current situation: if the war continues, NATO can feel it's winning by bleeding and weakening Russia, which it sees as a strategic adversary — Baden

Ok, hold on. I didn't know this. Why does NATO see Russia as a strategic adversary? I'm asking for real.

Maybe I could come back to the rest of your post later.

I hope so — Baden

:grimace:

I'm not saying they make that explicit in their documents. It's my wording. As I see it, NATO represents an expanded pre-cold-war block and Russia a diminished pre-cold-war block of countries that were on friendly terms for about five minutes before reverting to pursuing separate and often conflicting interests. Putin has been more open about talking about this than the Western side who are a little more coy. I could probably dig up some quotes from him.

I'm following the French news. There's nothing particularly original there that I can see. Of course they are not gung-ho like the Daily Beast or the WSJ, or the Sun. They try to be thoughtful and informative, as they should. There's a certain sobriety in French and more generally European media as compared to the US/UK.

The French government has kept its donations to Ukraine secret, probably because they didn't give much. The French state is pretty much broke.

The one and only French aircraft carrier +other ships are operating in the Black Sea, ostensibly to help protect Romania, Poland, etc. in case the conflict escalates.

All four French strategic nuclear strike submarines are out at sea (it's usually only one out at a time).

Most French analysts are satisfied that the Germans, at long last, are seriously investing in defence and trying to be less dependent on Russian gas. That's a good evolution, the way we see it, moving away from boy scout naivety.

On NATO, the French tend to act as the one disagreeing with the US. Other members would typically be shy to oppose the US in NATO, so the way it works is the French put out their objections informally on behalf of the other Europeans. It's all a bit fake. I don't know what the French position is re. Ukraine in NATO, but it would not surprise if they had been slow and uncommitted to it.

We will probably welcome them in the EU though. Now.

Well, Russia makes up a very large percentage of the world's Slavic population. And NATO is admittedly anti-Russia.

Plus, my question was addressed to @baker, not to you, so I don't see why there was a need for you to intercept it and put an "antisemitic" spin on it.

Moreover, I NEVER said NATO is only anti-Russia or anti-Slavs. On the contrary, I've repeatedly said NATO is also (or even primarily) anti-German.

It’s a well-known fact that NATO was created by America “to keep Russia out of Europe and the Germans down” as admitted by NATO's own website:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay - NATO

But the way I see it, Russia is equally entitled to create a military organization to keep America out of Europe. Likewise, Germany is entitled to create an organization to keep America and Russia out of Europe, etc., etc.

I don’t think America should have more rights over Europe than Russia or Germany. On the contrary, Russia should have more rights over Europe than America, and Germany as a Central European country, should have more rights over Europe than both Russia and America.

The problem is that America and its client states Britain and France have always hated Russia for having its own interests. First, they hated Russia for being “czarist”, then they hated it for being “communist”, and now they hate it for being “Nazi” or “Stalinist”. Or, perhaps, “Nazi” and “Stalinist”. Or, maybe, just for being Russian!

And the same goes for Germany. America, Britain, and France hated Germany for wanting to be an independent country, then they hated it for being “militaristic”, then for being “Nazi”, and now they hate it for not being militaristic enough and for refusing to play the role of NATO’s attack-dog against Russia!

Plus, as stated before, America and Russia invaded Germany in 1945. The Russians eventually left but the Americans are still there. Why can’t America just get out and leave Germany and Europe alone???

Why must Europe be an American colony? Why doesn’t America go and colonize China, India, Africa, or some other place like Afghanistan? Why Europe? Is it because Europeans have been brainwashed into seeing America as the master race that has a “God-given right” to rule over them?

IMO if America wants Russia to stay out of Europe then it should lead by example and go home first. And take its British and Turkish poodles with it. Unfortunately, that's impossible because the whole point of NATO is "to keep the Americans in Europe"!

If by "saner points" you mean parroting the mandatory pro-NATO line, then this should be stated in the OP. Anyway, I've got better things to do, so don't let me interrupt your "discussion" ....

You could have just asked for a better explanation, but ok. — Baden

I liked Frank's question to you: how do you fight power without power? Did you respond?