Yes. Charitably speaking, people are also tired of a unipolar world, something I can understand, and it's a new thing, not a feature in the 30's. It's not healthy that the US army be as large as what? the next 5 to 10 national armies put together? They are just too dominant. And hypocritical to high degree. That much I can concede. — Olivier5

But are Europeans here "the lapdogs" of the Empire? Some enthusiastically promote this view even in this thread, but it hasn't gone so easily with the US and it's allies. France is a good example of this. It has joined several of the wars that the US has fought, but not all. In not going along with the invasion of Iraq I remember the push from some angry Americans to change the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries" and all the talk of "Old Europe".

We have no say whatsoever over Russian policy so whinging about it is nothing but empty virtue signalling. — Isaac

Yet to know and understand Russian policy is absolutely necessary. Ignorance about it is a weakness. Understanding what Russia has now become under Putin and where Putin has lead the country is important.

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary. — Isaac

Yes. And notice that both me and @Christoffer have talked about what our governments are doing about the situation. I've personally met some members of parliament, not actually of the parties that I have voted, but talking even to them has given me confidence that they do understand what is at stake. It's comfortable to know that the bickering crowd of different parties and their politicians can get together and act as a team if the situation calls for it.

And since we don't have a history of colonization and foreign wars (except participation in the Afghan incursion), there's not so much to be critical about in this field. With other policies might be different...

We discover what our governments, our allies, are doing wrong and hold them to account for it. — Isaac

True.

Yet to know and understand Russian policy is absolutely necessary. Ignorance about it is a weakness. Understanding what Russia has now become under Putin and where Putin has lead the country is important. — ssu

It strikes me now that this sums up nicely the issues with your responses (and to an extent @Olivier5 and the conversation I'm having with @neomac).

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..."

As if we didn't know. As if our commenting on the US was because of a lack of data on who else does that too, or who was worse...

But our commenting on the US (rather than those others) has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge about their actions - we know full well that others support Neo-Nazis, we know full well that bombing children is a bad thing to do... We're commenting on the US (rather than those others) because they are the most powerful nation on earth. Because they are our government, or allied to our governments.

It's about holding power to account in the most effective manner, not 'informing'. Informing is the job of books, papers and lecturers. Holding government to account is the job of political rabble-rousing such as a thread like this. If there's historical data to take account of, it should be to serve that purpose, yours more often than not, serves only to pour cold water on it.

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary. — Isaac

Yes. And notice that both me and Christoffer have talked about what our governments are doing about the situation. — ssu

I've read you both being broadly supportive of it, particularly the moves in the direction of NATO. So all the more odd then that you seem so opposed to us criticising our governments without you having to constantly undermine the power of that complaint by pointing out how some other government has done the same, or worse.

because I use NoScript. — SophistiCat

What's that?

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..."

As if we didn't know. As if our commenting on the US was because of a lack of data on who else does that too, or who was worse... — Isaac

Other than NATO enlargement being this reason for Russia to attack Ukraine (and for many, the absolutely only important reason) or that the US gave support to Ukrainian protesters in 2014, what is the issue why a thread about Ukraine and the war in Ukraine has to be about the US?

If Russia does terrible things in Ukraine and this is a thread about Ukraine, what is wrong with then discussing this?

Yes, sorry if we bring up the actions of Russia, because Russia is the country that invaded Ukraine. And saying that Russia does bad things doesn't mean that others like the US cannot do them on other occasions.

I've read you both being broadly supportive of it, particularly the moves in the direction of NATO. So all the more odd then that you seem so opposed to us criticising our governments without you having to constantly undermine the power of that complaint by pointing out how some other government has done the same, or worse. — Isaac

I'm not sure if you understand you here.

So your critical about your governments. Fine. But just what has it have to do with Ukraine? Focus should be on what is going to happen in Ukraine. What the effects of this will be in Europe. That the US has also invaded countries (like Iraq), isn't actually what this thread is about.

Other than NATO enlargement being this reason for Russia to attack Ukraine (and for many, the absolutely only important reason) or that the US gave support to Ukrainian protesters in 2014, what is the issue why a thread about Ukraine and the war in Ukraine has to be about the US? — ssu

Add to that the US warmongering to enhance arms sales and reconstruction loans, and the US deliberately spreading misinformation to those ends then - nothing more.

Is that not enough? They've been instrumental in causing the war, perpetuating the war, and lying about the war...and you're seriously attempting some faux surprise about what they're doing in a thread about the war?

If Russia does terrible things in Ukraine and this is a thread about Ukraine, what is wrong with then discussing this? — ssu

As I said, it's futile virtue signalling which draws attention away from the malpractice of those powers which we both can and ought hold to account. We're not your therapists, if you're upset about the bad things that are happening, talk to a professional. If you're proud of what your government are doing, buy a flag.

So your critical about your governments. Fine. But just what has it have to do with Ukraine? Focus should be on what is going to happen in Ukraine. — ssu

It is. As I said, the US and Europe are key players in Ukraine. Cause, motivation, solution. They are deeply entwined in all three.

Is that not enough? They've been instrumental in causing the war, perpetuating the war, and lying about the war...and you're seriously attempting some faux surprise about what they're doing in a thread about the war? — Isaac

I think that in a thread about the war in Ukraine you should dare to talk about what is happening in Ukraine. Why are you so defensive about talking about Russia and what is has done in Ukraine?

As I said, it's futile virtue signalling which draws attention away from the malpractice of those powers which we both can and ought hold to account. — Isaac

A thread about the war in Ukraine is about the war in Ukraine.

If that is somehow futile virtue signalling for you, I guess it's you who needs therapy here.

But are Europeans here "the lapdogs" of the Empire? Some enthusiastically promote this view even in this thread, but it hasn't gone so easily with the US and it's allies. France is a good example of this. It has joined several of the wars that the US has fought, but not all. In not going along with the invasion of Iraq — ssu

It's an old French dream -- to which I subscribe -- to build an autonomous Europe, including in terms of foreign policy and military. The idea is called "l'Europe [comme] puissance" (Europe as a power), as opposed to what we have now which is basically a common market with bells and whistles. But other EU members have always preferred NATO as the best security framework for Europe.

I think that in a thread about the war in Ukraine you should dare to talk about what is happening in Ukraine. — ssu

I am talking about what's happening in Ukraine. The US, Europe and NATO are instrumental parts of what's happening in Ukraine. Not only that, but they're the parts toward which we bear some responsibility. That makes them not only part of what's happening, but the most important part.

If that is somehow futile virtue signalling for you, I guess it's you who needs therapy here. — ssu

Announcing who is morally wrong and ignoring your own culpability and responsibility is literally virtue signalling. Its the definition of the term.

It strikes me now that this sums up nicely the issues with your responses (and to an extent Olivier5 and the conversation I'm having with @neomac).

A quick summary of the last few hundred pages might be:

We say: "the US are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but Russia also does X..."

Or: "Russia does Y which is worse..." — Isaac

The exact opposite is happening. We are here to talk about Ukraine and you guys try to make it about your anti-american obsession, to deflect attention and blame away from Russia.

We are here to talk about Ukraine — Olivier5

Then why do you keep going on about Putin? He's not even in Ukraine.

The US, Europe and NATO are instrumental parts of what's happening in Ukraine. Not only that, but they're the parts toward which we bear some responsibility. That makes them not only part of what's happening, but the most important part. — Isaac

Most important part?

Most important part surely is with the Ukrainians and Putin's armed forces.

Well, my government is assisting Ukraine, sending them weapons. And with the words of our Prime minister, believing that Ukraine will win. And soon joining NATO.

The exact opposite is happening. We are here to talk about Ukraine and you guys try to make it about your anti-american obsession. — Olivier5

:up: :100:

Most important part surely is with the Ukrainians and Putin's armed forces. — ssu

Why?

my government is assisting Ukraine, sending them weapons. And with the words of our Prime minister, believing that Ukraine will win. And soon joining NATO. — ssu

So waive a flag.

Then why do you keep going on about Putin? He's not even in Ukraine. — Isaac

His forces are, cretin.

Try be serious. — Olivier5

You first. You excluded talk of the US, Europe and NATO because this is about Ukraine. Why are they excluded but not Putin?

You'd argue that despite not being in Ukraine, Putin is responsible for the events there and integral to how any solution might work.

That's exactly the same argument by which discussion about the US, Europe and NATO is included.

You'd argue that despite not being in Ukraine, Putin is responsible for the events there and integral to how any solution might work.

That's exactly the same argument by which discussion about the US, Europe and NATO is included. — Isaac

NATO have no troops fighting in Ukraine, the Russians do. This makes a big difference in terms of involvement and hence responsibility.

NATO have no troops fighting in Ukraine, the Russians do. This makes a big difference in terms of involvement and hence responsibility. — Olivier5

Indeed. I don't see anyone denying a difference in scale. You are attempting something much more categorical than that.

Why does the difference in the scale of responsibility mean we can discuss one party ad infinitum but should never mention the other?

Indeed. I don't see anyone denying a difference in scale. You are attempting something much more categorical than that. — Isaac

There is a categorical difference here. Those countries fighting in the Ukraine war, vs those not fighting. Two different categories.

A further categorical difference is between the party that started the war, and the party defending itself.

Why does the difference in the scale of responsibility mean we can discuss one party ad infinitum but should never mention the other? — Isaac

You can mention whatever. The influence of Saturn in Virgo is also relevant, I guess. But this is a thread focused on the war in Ukraine first and foremost, with tangents. So your description of the exchange above was getting things upside down: the real discussion is like this:

We say: "the Russians are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but the US also does X..."

Or: "The US does Y which is worse..."

Not vice versa...

There is a categorical difference here. Those countries fighting in the Ukraine war, vs those not fighting. Two different categories. — Olivier5

You were referring to responsibility...

This makes a big difference in terms of involvement and hence responsibility. — Olivier5

...you could at least follow your own argument.
How does who's actually fighting create a categorical difference. Again, Putin is not actually fighting. He's ordering, encouraging orchestrating the fighting, but not actually doing it. The US are playing a similar role (with the exception of ordering).

Notwithstanding any of that, you've not explained why the question of who is actually fighting has any bearing on the question of whom we ought discuss.

You can mention whatever. — Olivier5

I'm not asking for your permission, I'm interrogating your reasons. What are your reasons for thinking we ought not discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO?

What are your reasons for thinking we ought not discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? — Isaac

You mistook me for someone who cares what you talk about very much. I don't. When I see a mistake or a lie, I point it out. So for instance, all I meant to say in this particular instance is that your description of the exchange above was getting things upside down.

This precision made, you may carry on with whatever you were saying about the Big Satan.

You mistook me for someone who cares what you talk about very much. I don't. — Olivier5

How's that in the least bit relevant to...

What are your reasons for thinking we ought not discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? — Isaac

...?

You presumably have an opinion on whether one ought to discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? You presumably have reasons for that opinion. I'm asking what they are. What I choose to do doesn't enter into it.

the real discussion is like this:

We say: "the Russians are terrible for doing X...

You say: "yes but the US also does X..."

Or: "The US does Y which is worse..."

Not vice versa... — Olivier5

Yes, obviously. But no-one is complaining about that. The part of the conversation I'm asking about is why you then say

"yes but Russia also does X..."

or: "Russia does Y which is worse..."

...and proceed to disparage the comment, infer (or often just directly say) that we're Putin apologists, that we're on Russia's side, that we're condoning their actions...etc

The reasoning for the first half I've already given...

We do have both a say and a duty to hold our own governments to account. So doing so is not only useful but necessary. — Isaac

...and...

We have no say whatsoever over Russian policy so whinging about it is nothing but empty virtue signalling. — Isaac

So I've explained why, when you say about Russia's crimes I'm inclined to say "what about America?". I'm now asking you in return why, when I talk about American culpability, you're so inclined to say "Yes, but what about Russia?"

You presumably have an opinion on whether one ought to discuss the role of the US, Europe and NATO? You presumably have reasons for that opinion. I'm asking what they are. What I choose to do doesn't enter into it. — Isaac

Sure, one ought to discuss whatever one wants to discuss. I think it's called freedom of speech. And if one doesn't want to discuss something, one is free not to.

. The part of the conversation I'm asking about is why you then say

"yes but Russia also does X..." — Isaac

I don't see anyone doing that here. They just think your points are irrelevant and they go back to their original issue with something they see as more relevant.

Your disingenuousness isn't the interesting matter here. If that's all you're prepared to offer at the moment I'll wait for another opportunity where you might be more candid.

I am curious what you all think. Suppose Ukraine, when Russia had its forces on the border threatening, would have committed formally to neutrality and to never join NATO. Would that have been the end of it? Suppose they would have then continued to develop their oil and gas interests in competition with Russia and furthering their development as a modern, Western-style capitalist democracy. Would Russia just leave everyone in the region alone?

The Nazis were definitely wrong. Im not so sure "We" are right. The world is not so black and white. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sometimes it is.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out.

I think everyone here should watch this:

The Nazis were definitely wrong. Im not so sure "We" are right. The world is not so black and white. — Merkwurdichliebe


Sometimes it is. — RogueAI

So the first task is to determine which cases are black and white and which aren't.

Is that decision black and white?

I keep wishing he'd post more about Tbilisi cos I'm thinking of going.

Don't let the door hit your ass on your way out. — Olivier5

...he said, trying a more absurdist ploy — John Hegley