But from a "realpolitik" perspective, it makes sense. — Manuel

I don't think it does. I think Putin knows NATO is not a threat to Russia. The Western countries would love for Russia to get its act together and work with them to contain China. Putin tried for the easy land grab and came up short.

Yep.

If that's true, why didn't NATO accept Russia as a member back in 2000?

Contain China? Where? They're going to some areas in the South China Sea, but are surrounded by countries with fire power.

If that's true, why didn't NATO accept Russia as a member back in 2000? — Manuel

Here's a good article on that:
https://time.com/5564207/russia-nato-relationship/

Remember that Trump said quite a few times that NATO was "obsolete". And he was elected! And NATO members have been skimping on their defense spending. That is not an organization that is spoiling for a fight with Russia.

Contain China? Where? They're going to some areas in the South China Sea, but are surrounded by countries with fire power.

Let's keep it that way. China's system is evil and repressive. The more enemies it has the better.

Human rights and NATO! Is that a joke? Because Turkey is a prime example of human rights.

The purpose of NATO was to contain the Soviet Union. Why is it still around if the Soviet Union fell a long time ago?

It was completely obsolete and Europe should by now have it's own military (a real one), not reliant on the US.

Let's keep it that way. China's system is evil and repressive. The more enemies it has the better. — RogueAI

Are we trying to understand the world or are we subjecting it to Disneyfication?

I was going to laugh at the fact that the US gave $800 million dollars in weapons away to Ukraine despite being a third world country that "can't afford" healthcare for its citizens, then I remembered that it gave one billion dollars in arms to Israel so it can continue murdering Palestinians and then I remembered that the US is a bunch of arms manufacturers in a trench coat who fund genocide when and where it takes place.

This is all possible by the manufacture of consent, and the two-party - divide-the-country approach to US politics. The ultimate triumph of any evil empire, it seems it to reach the point where it does not have to silence criticism because those in charge are too powerful to let anyone change their decisions. I think the most powerful weapon manufactured is the manufacture of consent, which Chomsky was allowed to publish - apparently he was acting alone.

Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media is a 1988 book by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky. It argues that the mass communication media of the U.S. "are effective and powerful ideological institutions that carry out a system-supportive propaganda function, by reliance on market forces, internalized assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion", by means of the propaganda model of communication.[1] The title refers to consent of the governed, and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922).[2] The book was honored with the Orwell Award.

In such situations, successful activism is the answer, but we must get the define the problem first.

The introduction describes man's inability to interpret the world: "The real environment is altogether too big, too complex, and too fleeting for direct acquaintance"[2] between people and their environment. People construct a pseudo-environment that is a subjective, biased, and necessarily abridged mental image of the world, and to a degree, everyone's pseudo-environment is a fiction. People "live in the same world, but they think and feel in different ones."[3]

Public Opinion proposes that the increased power of propaganda and the specialized knowledge required for effective political decisions have rendered the traditional notion of democracy impossible.

What I see today seems to make this assessment correct. This in 1922

Well if that is the way the Biden Regime thinks then it all makes sense to surround China and prepare for the ultimate war with China. It only requires a few people in power to go along, and apparently intellectual prowess does not prelude this opinion.

https://www.sott.net/article/317746-Justifying-covert-aggression-Americas-biggest-of-all-big-lies

I do not think that the UN Charter says anything about regime change, or which methods of government are permissible. However, no-one really respects it. "No More War" is like arsonists reaching an agreement on preventing arson, with matches in their hands.

The Greek government, for example, was requested by the US to host bases.

Specifically, it is seeking air and naval facilities on the island of Skyros that could be used by either rotational or permanent U.S. units, Kathimerini reported.

Skyros is in the center of the Aegean and would give U.S. ships and aircraft quicker access to the Black Sea, where NATO has sought to expand operations over concerns about Russian aggression.

U.S. European Command has stepped up operations across Greece over the past few years, establishing a steadier foothold in the strategic eastern Mediterranean in response to Russia.

China’s growing economic clout in the area, which includes control of the Greek port at Piraeus, also concerns U.S. military officials.

Look, go ahead and have your war. The innocent people of the world will suffer as always, and maybe it is time they undertook some self-defence of their own.

Anyone who whines about Chinese influence but has nothing to say about the 100+ US military bases around the planet can STFU and be shot into the sun.

I'm no commie, I'll say that, but these China accusations are pretty wild. You REALLY gotta buy the "Western POV", hook, line and sinker

The propaganda peddled and eaten up wholesale by the West and people in the West against China is utterly insane. And I say this as someone with a deep hatred for alot of what China has and continues to do. But everytime an Amercian shits their pants over something China does - this is a good thing. And China's willingness to crackdown on its ultra-wealthy is a model to be emulated with passion.

On the topic of competence, at least Russia has avoided cartoonish blunders.

Their flag ship is an older, but heavily upgraded missile carrier specced out for area denial. It packs a ton of fire power. However, it does so at the cost of cramming 64 S-300 missiles and a further 16 P-500 cruise missiles, plus a few dozen short range SAMs, into a small area. It might seem like a bit too much high explosive in one place it you're one of the ship's 500 crewmen.

The cruise missiles seem pretty dear to Russia right now, given their sparing use of them despite the fact that they represent their safest option for taking out NATO arms shipments out in western Ukraine. Meanwhile, the area denial capabilities of the S-300 make them ship quite valuable.

So, it would be really silly to have it patrolling the Ukrainian coast within anti-ship missile range for no apparent reason. It is possibly providing AA around Kherson, AA against what is unclear. In any case, you wouldn't want to be just sailing it on a predictable loop for days on end because there is nothing for it to do, but it has to look busy. And even if you did this, once open sources were documenting it and making fun of the path, you wouldn't keep doing it, and go on sailing right into range of an anti-ship missile that in turn ignites all the high explosive you've got on board, right?

Oh...


Gotta have some way to funnel tax payer cash to the contractors.

So I’m explicitly asking you - now for the fifth time - to provide evidences of such claim “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another”. — neomac

Don't be ridiculous. If this is going to be your approach we can forget it, I've not the time to play these daft games. My point requires only that the policies of the ruling classes cause some deaths among the working classes, there's nothing to discuss on that front because it's either obvious that this is the case and needs no evidence or you really haven't a clue about economics of politics in which case I'm not going to spend my time teaching you.

I don’t see the point of your claim “defending one's nation' alone is insufficient as a moral reason” since the “insufficiency” qualification by comparison to other alleged more relevant moral reasons (e.g. fighting against the ruling class, which you admit can be unacknowledged by the oppressed) doesn’t question the fact that Ukrainians actually have an acknowledged moral reason to fight for defending their nation and therefore feel compelled to act upon it as they do. — neomac

Of course it questions that fact. If there's no moral case for defending one's nation then those merely 'defending their nation' have no moral case. It could not be more simple.

OK then what is the relation between Russian and Ukrainian rich people being in a luxury yachts, while Russian and Ukrainian children starve do death in their rubbish, with the fact that Russian soldiers are exterminating Ukrainian families and children? — neomac

Nor did I restrict my analysis to Russia and Ukraine. Are you going to go around the world adding one country at a time or are you going to have an honest conversation including the fact that America and Europe are deeply involved in this conflict?

So you are not claiming that the war in Ukraine is a war between American and Russian expansionism as great power politics in Mearsheimer-lingo, now?! — neomac

Nope. What the situation is and what our choices are, are two different things.

if your moral position and choices should not be constrained within a de facto clash of dominance between American and Russian powers, then also Zelensky moral position and choices should not be constrained within what a de facto war situation is, especially as framed by the enemy. — neomac

Who said Zelensky was 'constrained' by the de facto circumstances?

You should tell me! You talked about multi-causal analysis, I didn’t! — neomac

You introduced maths. Why does a multi-causal analysis entail that I should be able to carry out some mathematical calculation assigning degrees of blame? I can say party X is somewhat to blame and party Y somewhat to blame. That's multi-causal and involves no maths whatsoever.

I made my moral assessment based on a posteriori comparative evaluation concerning how much Zelensky’s choices reflect what Ukrainians actually value (defending Ukraine from Russian aggression), how much Ukrainian values are closer to Westerners wrt Russians (Ukrainains are more open to westernization), how much proportionate Russian response to the claimed threat from Ukrainians was, how much Russian aggressive expansionism is an actual existential threat to the West (given the actual Russian cyberwar against the West, the actual nuclear threat against the West, the actual Russian aggressive expansion in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa, and Putin’s actual aspirations to a new world order), and so on, and my conclusion is that I have moral reasons to side with Zelensky’s resistance against Russia. — neomac

So a list of arbitrary preferences then...

if you contrast a Russian puppet government wrt Zelensky’s, praise the first and blame the second — neomac

Where have I done anything of the sort? It's simple

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

Sure, but that’s also why you would consider the poor/Palestinian parents immoral because they are knowingly exposing their children to death/sickness/starvation/misery. — neomac

Why? People are not normally required to avoid all risk to others in order to avoid being labelled immoral?

What are the other solutions you are talking about? — neomac

I'm not answering these stupid questions. Either have a serious conversation or don't bother replying.

What is the point of such claims, in particular the part I put in bold? I see none. — neomac

Seriously. You don't see the point in ascertaining who I'm talking to? What garbage.

I have no idea what “the outcome continued war is compared to matters.” is supposed to mean. — neomac

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

P1. If, in the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, demands are unacceptable [p] or the assurances aren’t enough [q], then the negotiation fail [r]
P2. In the Ukrainian-Russian negotiation, negotiation demands were unacceptable [p] and assurances weren’t enough [q]
C. The negotiation fail [r] — neomac

Well then C doesn't follow because you've not demonstrated P2.

Yes I’m claiming there are moral reasons to back a particular strategy, and the particular strategy is supporting Zelensky’s resistance against Russian aggression. Does that sound new to you after all I already, repeatedly and extensively said? — neomac

No, but you've yet to adequately support any such reasons other than state some entirely arbitrary preferences and then declare alternative 'preposterous'. If you find the views of anyone who doesn't share your entirely arbitrary preferences 'preposterous' I suggest a debate forum isn't the best place for you.

> Fine. Replace all my uses of US, NATO and Europe with the names of their current leaders and influences and then answer the questions.

That’s your job. When you do your job, I’ll do mine. — neomac

Seriously? You want me to re-post all of my comments with the names edited. Are you retarded? Can you seriously not handle the task of simply reading one for the other?

you are just saying that one party has to converge to the requests of the other party as they are formulated. — neomac

Option 1 - Long drawn out war, thousands dead, crippled by debt, economy run by the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of lobbyists benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue and yellow flag over the parliament.

Option 2 - Less long war, fewer dead, less crippled by debt, less in thrall to the IMF, regime run by corrupt politicians in the pocket of oligarchs benefiting the corporations and immiserating the poor. Blue, red and white flag over the parliament.

Option 2 has fewer dead.

I'm not saying anyone has to do anything. I'm pointing out that the terms offered by Russia are in this specific case, not applying to every single case in the world (which you bizarrely assumed), are such that it's not worth thousands of lives and huge indebtedness just to avoid them.

I would understand better if you could show me how you would answer to your own question: “If the outcomes of strategic decisions are beyond your expertise, then why do you choose to trust the experts and leaders supporting your current position and not those supporting the alternatives?” — neomac

I choose the experts whose opinions align with the narratives I prefer. I have world views I find satisfying and if an expert opinion aligns with those I'll choose to believe that expert rather than one whose opinion opposes them. All this assuming the expert in question has sufficient qualification and no obvious conflict of interest. Seeing this crisis as a random outburst from an unprovoked madman (who the US can stamp on with it's shiny military) is useless. It achieves nothing. Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lends support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.

I was contrasting their opinion with yours and I explained why.
If you can suggest military and foreign policy experts or political commentators that disagree with my views or support your views, I’m open to have a look at them, of course. — neomac

I already have.

It doesn’t look likely to me. — Punshhh

Your assessment of the likelihood is irrelevant. I just can't get my head round the enthusiasm with which a load of armchair laymen want to speculate about the likelihoods, it's like we're betting on a boxing match. I find it more than a little disturbing.

What I'm talking about are the factors that we, as laymen, get to deal with - whose story do you trust and why?

I'm not being right lipped about assessments. Here is one for the current conflict — Count Timothy von Icarus

That talks about Russia's military success in Ukraine. We we're talking about the risk posed by escalating NATO's involvement. Where is the source you're using for your assessment that escalating NATO involvement presents little risk of retaliation from Russia?

Tightlipped? If I remember correctly (I may remember incorrectly), you are the one making accusations of me keeping here a blog and putting links and that I should go and see a therapist. — ssu

Sources, not opinions. I have the latter in spades already. You said...

wouldn't likely launch WW3 now. — ssu

I asked for a source. It's not rocket science. You find the article from which you got that assessment and you paste the web address (or paste the quote).

What's scary right now is that Sweden still hasn't 100% decided and it would be a clusterfuck if we didn't join while Finland did. Russia would probably invade Gotland to keep a buffer zone in the Baltic sea if that happens. — Christoffer

Ha! Why on earth would they do that? Russia don't invade countries to keep a buffer between them and NATO, that would be ridiculous (apparently) they only invade former USSR territory to satisfy Putin's personal fantasy of a Russian empire.

So tell me again, how is it that NATO advancement into the Eastern bloc didn't provoke Putin, but advancement into Finland definitely would?

Your assessment of the likelihood is irrelevant. I just can't get my head round the enthusiasm with which a load of armchair laymen want to speculate about the likelihoods, it's like we're betting on a boxing match.

We’re all laymen here, or hadn’t you noticed. I’m making a substantive point, which you haven’t countered. That a new iron curtain is descending across Europe.(not a physical barrier, but one in terms of commerce and immigration, or emigration)

I find it more than a little disturbing.

Well welcome to a debating society. If you can’t take the heat don’t enter the kitchen.

What I'm talking about are the factors that we, as laymen, get to deal with - whose story do you trust and why?

So you admit to being a layman. That’s a good start.

I don’t trust anyone’s story, I don’t need to, I make my own assessment.

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia?

I don’t trust anyone’s story, I don’t need to, I make my own assessment. — Punshhh

Really. You physically go out and gather your own evidence and then learn all the historical, military, political and economic processes acting on that evidence all by yourself. That's really impressive. You must have to get up very early in the morning.

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia? — Punshhh

Well... Imagine what an Iron Curtain between Europe and Russia would consist of. Now imagine it not there. Voilà. That's what it would look like.

We’re in the 21st century. There are multiple media resources.

So, without that iron curtain. After the conflict has been resolved. Will every Russian citizen be free to emigrate?

Now what does a resolution to this conflict look like, without an iron curtain between Europe and Russia? — Punshhh

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin -- natural or otherwise -- and/or his replacement by somebody less confrontational and militaristic. It is probably what it will take for this conflict to end for good.

We’re in the 21st century. There are multiple media resources. — Punshhh

Uh huh. And you can't believe them all. Hence the question - whose story do you trust and why?

So, without that iron curtain. After the conflict has been resolved. Will every Russian citizen be free to emigrate? — Punshhh

Yes. Since you stipulated that an iron curtain was a barrier to migration, then it stands to reason that without it emigration would be relatively free.

A resolution of this conflict might look like the death of Putin — Olivier5

Yes. And then it turns out that Putin was Zelensky's father all along but turned evil by Biden back when he was training to be a dictator... Brilliant. Just don't encourage anyone to make the sequel, they're shit.

It’s not necessary to trust a media resource in order to derive information from it. Better to take a broad take of many sources to arrive at a sense of what is happening on the ground.

emigration would be relatively free.

And when growing numbers of people emigrate due to the dire standard of living in Russia due to sanctions etc. Presumably Putin will seek to restrict the numbers leaving. ( presumably you can see where this is leading)

It could be far simpler than any of your crap. People die. It happens.

I am not for the death of the good Vlad. A more subtle exit strategy would be to finish off the SMO one way or another declare 'victory' and step down. As a further plus, turning himself to the ICJ for war crimes investigations will make him a hero of sorts. There's this stand-by Medvedev, who looks like a pretty decent replacement, and voted as the person least likely to invade another country (source unknown).

The good Vlad is free to meditate on his mistakes in the comfort of his Yachts. If he did the SMO to avoid genocide, then he will realize that after a point it is pointless. He knew he could lose.

Check the number of people leaving Ukraine before the SMO and their incomes vs Russia. Not all that great.

Perhaps the removal of Putin would improve the situation. But I think the whole regime would need to be changed, or another Putin clone might emerge with no change. Also without wholesale reform of governance in Russia, European leaders might not be able to develop trust in any regime which emerges.

While we are at it, what about the Obama- Biden regime? Would't that be a nice change?

another Putin clone might emerge with no change. — Punshhh

Yes, that's possible of course. I am just unable to see how Putin could swallow a serious peace treaty with Ukraine.