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" .... — Apollodorus

I said

your saner points — Baden

'Your' as in 'you', not the pro-NATO side.

Yes.

their NWO agenda — Apollodorus

"New World Order"? If so, ye' can't be serious.

Couple chucklesome quotes...

Who do you think the establishment is? It's just guys like me. Their desks are bigger, but their jobs aren't. They don't conspire, they buy boats. — Quentin (Cube (1997))

This may be hard for you to understand, but there is no conspiracy. Nobody is in charge. It, it's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan. Can you grasp that? — Worth (Cube (1997))

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. — Baden

I don't think Putin's concern is NATO. It's the US. He wants the US to go down a notch in global importance, and for Russia to go up a notch.

But instead of approaching it like a 21st century neoliberal, he's going at it like he thinks he's Peter the Great.

That's my half-assed assessment. The US, on the other hand only cares about Russia because they interfered in American elections, and they're sketchy to deal with on Middle Eastern security issues.

The US government cares about China because they're prepping to take over half the world.

See why I'm confused about the Idea that NATO is pestering Russia? I don't see how.

Can you explain it?

Read it, it was as expected, naïve if well intended.

Just going by the destruction in various cities seems difficult to reproduce elsewhere. — Benkei

A ruin can be rebuilt, that is very easy, but a fascist regime cannot improve. It cannot be reformed into a less fascist one. Russia is now a fascist militarist petrostate, and will remain so for quite a while. This can't be good for them Russians, although of course it's good for the leaders.

If Ukraine manages to remain a democracy, it will rebound. Of course this remains to be seen.

A ruin can be rebuilt, that is very easy, but a fascist regime cannot improve. It cannot be reformed into a less fascist one. Russia is now a fascist militarist petrostate, and will remain so for quite a while. This can't be good for them Russian, although of course it's good for the leaders.

If Ukraine manages to remain a democracy, it will rebound. Of course this reamains to be seen. — Olivier5

The war isn't contributing to Russian socio-economic organisation. It was a fascist military oligarchy before the war started.

Ukraine was a democracy in name only. Riven with corruption.

What I'm missing from your analysis is number of deaths and deplacement of people. I'm somewhat less concerned with economic damage; the ruins seem to suggest a lot civilian death. I suppose that wasn't very clear. Russia doesn't have to rebuild much, except military equipment so far. So again, under which realistic circumstances will Russia come out worse than Ukraine?

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 — Apollodorus

Hilarious that this exists.

And worth following the link, it's not even buried in a bunch of text as just the historical record relevant for that reason, it's the lead citation summing up this guys contribution to the world.

And definitely, more fruitful, especially on a philosophy forum, to stick to facts that are easy to establish.

True, the term "World New Order" does get mentioned from time to time by our overlords, but it's not an established fact that it's anything more than something "cool" to say they made up drinking on the golf course one day.

And these are people that give themselves Star Wars nicknames:

And there he stayed for 42 years, cultivating a group of disciples who called themselves members of “St. Andrew’s Prep.” By the 2000s, Marshall, then in his 80s, had earned the affectionate nickname Yoda. — The Return of the Pentagon’s Yoda, Foreign Policy

These are just minions, but the people at the top aren't having any less fun.

... There's even a Wikipedia page of George Bush's nicknames for people.

Nickname: Flies on the Eyeballs Guy
Real name: Cofer Black
position: Director of the CIA Counterterrorist Center — List of nicknames used by George W. Bush, wikipedia

It's more Lord of the Flies than 1984, just we're all stuck on the same island.

To add to that, I don't see this as a "winnable" war. — Baden

The arms manufacturers win - contracts. Somebody has to be benefiting. Always winnable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/15/europe/germany-f-35-fighter-jets-replace-tornado-intl/index.html

Incidentally, Ferguson is a respected historian, though I'm sure the NATO jihadis on here would like to label him "Putin troll" .... — Apollodorus

Very clearly an anti-Putin piece, anyone can see that. For those who are not impressed by such propaganda it is simply annoying.

Read it, it was as expected, naïve if well intended. — Olivier5

It should be easy for you then to demonstrate where I've been naive. Go ahead.

under which realistic circumstances will Russia come out worse than Ukraine? — Benkei

The future will come soon enough. I don't need to engage, and least of all solve, a dispute between rival prophecies here. I suspect you don't really need it either. Just wait and see.

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. — Olivier5

I am still laughing, by the way, that you responded to "here is perhaps the most important international shift of geopower in decades" with "here is where the French have put their boat".

It's really so good. The sobriety is, in fact, real.

You are most welcome. I was responding to:

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

They're not prophecies. You can analyse the situation and have an understanding of war and history and current geopolitical decisions to get to a decent conclusion.

What I think is at play for your reticence here is you're worried that in fact Boethius might be right all along, that cheerleading the continuation of the war and sending armaments (to "bleed the Russians" as Niall Ferguson quoted a US official), could be an immoral position.

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. — StreetlightX

There's one part I found note worthy that wasn't transcribed.

Transcription skips Villepain explaining Russian perspective, in particular no credit for their fight against the Nazis, and instead being antagonized and ultimately humiliated by the West.

Interviewer interrupts with:

"Re-writing history, says Emanuel Macron"

Villepain:

"""
Yes, but it's not so simple as that!

You know, anyways, as a diplomat, we can't just completely deny what other's believe.

We can consider we have differnet opinons, but we are obliged to take into consideration [the others]: above all, when they're in front of us, and we're even brought to confront them.

And a last battle, which is essential, and China advances, obviously has in mind, is the battle of power! And we can all see the effort well militarily, of people here and there, and the economic one by China; thus we cannot consider it a negligible quantity.
"""

(French way of talking sounds a bit weird translated directly to English, but it's just how French people talk; such as "we're brought" to do something, is an interesting French expression which explains what you decided to do ... by presenting it as others stringing you along the whole time; and other people don't even need to be involved at all, it connotes more that the end result, or that part of the story, wasn't some sort of goal, but haphazard series of events)

The US, on the other hand only cares about Russia because they interfered in American elections, and they're sketchy to deal with on Middle Eastern security issues. — frank

There are a much wider and more important range of economic and security reasons the US cares about Russia. The most pertinent being:

"The nation possesses approximately 6,000 nuclear warheads as of 2022—the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. Nearly half of the world's 12,700 nuclear weapons are owned by Russia."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

And the following calculus doesn't really make sense: Putin's an evil madman + Putin has half the world's nuclear weapons = No need to care about Russia.

Thanks, I appreciate that. But yes, I remember being shocked to learn - not long ago either - that it was Russia that destroyed 80% of the wehrmacht in WWII, but in literally any narrative ever, it's the US that gets all of the credit.

And the following calculus doesn't really make sense: Putin's an evil madman + Putin has half the world's nuclear weapons = No need to care about Russia. — Baden

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power.

I was asking specifically about NATO's antagonism of Russia, the basis of it and the form it has taken.

I can investigate myself, I just thought you would know about it.

In short, because such political nihilism facilitates the work of exploiters. It leads to inaction, to 'they are all equally corrupt so why bother'. As if all powers were the same. As if it didn't matter whether you live in Europe or in North Korea.

You remember the iron curtain ? It was not symmetrical. Not many Westerners tried to flee East. That could mean something.

Lol if you're not flag-waving for one of the two imperial death machines, you are a 'political nihilist'. I actually feel sorry for you.

I never cease to be amazed at the desert of imagination of those who cannot fathom a politics that does not entail eating boots whole leather.

I don't think the US govt sees Putin as an evil madman. I think they see him as the dictator of a regional power. — frank

Yes, I was being hyperbolic.

I was asking specifically about NATO's antagonism of Russia, the basis of it and the form it has taken. — frank

Oh, OK. Well, you can go right back to the end of the cold war and work your way up from there. I find this a good overview for the 90's up to 2009 for a start.

https://www.cairn.info/revue-politique-etrangere-2009-5-page-107.htm

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. Moscow did not want and had no means to dominate this strategically important region. But it also did not want the region to be controlled by a more powerful military alliance, which had been Moscow’s enemy in Europe for so many years. NATO never seriously considered Russia as a possible member, and its joint military organization now had huge superiority over Russian military forces.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed.

1) "in 1997. NATO invited Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary to join. At the same time, it signed another declaration with Russia – the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security, which established the procedure for consultations, but no Russian veto rights over NATO’s decision-making. NATO promised no “permanent stationing of substantial combat forces” and “no intention, no plan and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new members.”

2) "In 1999 NATO started ‘a war of choice’ against Serbia, which was trying to suppress by brutal force the secessionists’ insurgency in Kosovo. The NATO bombing during the Kosovo war was widely perceived in Russia as proving the naivety of post-Cold War expectations that the West was willing to treat Russia as an equal partner

3) "In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In 2002, Moscow was presented with a fait accompli when NATO implemented a new round of expansion. This time it was a ‘big bang’ – NATO admitted seven new members, including three former Soviet republics: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. NATO fully absorbed what used to be the ‘security belt’ of the USSR."

4) "In 2003 the US invaded Iraq. This war was opposed by Russia."

5) "Moscow interpreted the ‘orange’ and ‘rose’ revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia, respectively, in 2004 as new evidence of the Western strategy to marginalize Russia and make it militarily impotent before the US and NATO"

6) "Russia was even more alarmed about the third US ballistic missile defense (BMD) site, which the Bush administration decided to deploy in Poland and the Czech Republic. The third site had an open-ended architecture, and was perceived as demonstrating that the US intended to eventually deny Russia’s nuclear deterrence. " (that's a biggie).

You remember the iron curtain ? It was not symmetrical. Not many Westerners tried to flee East. That could mean something. — Olivier5

:100:

This makes no sense as a response to my post. It's the opposite of politicial nihilism to look beyond propaganda to actual real people and how they are affected by real things like bombs and suchlike and make their welfare the priority rather than some nationalistic ideal that is antithetical to their interests.

That Western Europe was a nicer place to live than the USSR I'm not debating and is not even remotely the issue here. :roll:

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. — boethius

I don't think that was what I was focusing on at all. On the contrary, my focus was on the larger picture which is the conflict between rival world powers. Without the rivalry between America and Russia, which is a continuation of the previous rivalry between Britain and Russia, there would be no conflict over Ukraine.

Anyway, from what I see, there are at least three anti-Russian threads on this forum, including this one. So, I honestly don’t understand why there is so much fear and panic when someone posts one comment that disagrees with the pro-NATO narrative. I find it quite odd, actually.

As I said, maybe the best solution would be for the mods to post comments on our behalf and we just sit and watch – or, even better, we can ignore the “discussion” and the forum …. :grin:

Jesus H. Christ, I'm a mod and I'm arguing against the pro-NATO narrative right now, you dill.

What I think is at play for your reticence here is you're worried that in fact Boethius might be right all along, that cheerleading the continuation of the war and sending armaments (to "bleed the Russians" as Niall Ferguson quoted a US official), could be an immoral position. — Benkei

Why, thanks for writing clearly. The accusation that anyone is 'cheerleading' the Ukrainians is a bit odd though. I'm trying to be open minded, but it seems to me that the team on the ground is playing the game, not the pompom girls. In US sport, are cheerleaders often credited with the wins or losses of the team they cheerlead?

My personal 'support' to Ukraine is not going to change anything, it is symbolic. I am not even supporting any particular direction by the Ukrainian leadership. They are perfectly welcome to negotiate something, as far as I am concerned.. You shouldn't be worried about my guilt in all this.

The charge of cheerleading is thus bogus. Now to that of sending armaments to "bleed the Russians". Why would you see that as immoral? The Russians are on the offensive. The West is interested in beating them down. The Ukrainians are defending themselves, which is their right, and they ask for ammunition. Of course the West is going to ship some, at least countries that can afford it, if only to test them in real war conditions.

"Moscow still looked at Eastern Europe, which was now relabeled as Central Europe, as a security buffer between Russia and the West. — Baden

Historians say that perception actually ended with the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing. This was the real basis of the cold war: Stalin felt vulnerable.

Russia’s efforts to maintain the status quo failed — Baden

Their economy was in shambles. The US gave aid to Russia, for fuck's sake.

In 2002, the George W. Bush administration decided to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty and started to deploy ballistic-missile defense systems, despite Russian protests. In — Baden

Wasn't this because of Iran?

Eh, this was a mistake. You're just pissing me off. I need the information without any spin. I'll find it.

Of course you are doing that, only so long as it's in line with YOUR idea of "arguing against the pro-NATO narrative". :smile:

Anyway, carry on arguing, I'm not preventing you, am I? I was simply replying to @boethius.