https://www-expressen-se.translate.goog/nyheter/sverige-backar-om-vapen-till-turkiet-turbulent-tid/?_x_tr_sl=sv&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Fuck Sweden

I think what you guys fail to see is that even if aspects of what Russia is doing are wrong (and I never said they weren't!), America still bears a lot of responsibility for Russia's actions.

The fact is that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have disbanded. But, instead, it decided to expand, shifting its defense line eastward and seeking to draw Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into its orbit.

Indeed, when Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, it had no reason to feel threatened by Russia.

On the contrary, on 8 December 1991, Ukraine joined Russia and Belarus to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

These three countries had been the core of the Kievan Rus and later of the Russian Empire and were very close to each other historically, culturally, and linguistically. The logical step to take would have been for them to remain on friendly terms and this was recognized by all three when they formed CIS.

It was NATO leaders who on 6 July 1990 (even before Ukraine became independent) proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

On 20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) in which it invited Ukraine and the other CIS countries (former Soviet republics) to participate.

On 22 February 1992, Ukraine announced its intention to pursue a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP).

On 8 February 1994, Ukraine joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program (PfP) that the US government described as a "track that will lead to NATO membership".

On 29 May 1997, Ukraine became a member of NATO’s Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) that replaced the North Atlantic Cooperation Council.

On 24 June 2010 the Ukrainian government approved an action plan to implement an annual national program of cooperation with NATO that included training of Ukrainian troops in the structures of NATO members and joint tactical and strategic exercises with NATO.

On 8 June 2017, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law making integration with NATO "a foreign policy priority”.

On 14 September 2020, Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO".

IMO what the facts indicate is that the expansion process was initiated by NATO, not by Ukraine.

It is often claimed that countries like Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic wanted to join NATO because they were "scared to death" of Russia. But NATO aimed to incorporate not only smaller Warsaw Pact countries but also Russia itself.

If NATO is a "defensive organization", against whom exactly did Russia need to be “defended” by NATO??? :smile:

Clearly, there was an expansionist agenda on NATO’s part! Russia was initially interested – which, incidentally, demonstrates that it had no hostile intentions – but eventually declined when it realized that joining NATO meant submitting to US domination.

On October 22, 1993, Russian President Yeltsin and US Secretary of State Warren Christopher held a meeting in Moscow.

According to minutes of the meeting,

With a great deal of care and study, President Clinton decided on what recommendation to make to the NATO summit in January. “In this respect your letter came at exactly the right time and it played a decisive role in President Clinton’s consideration.” There could be no recommendation to ignore or exclude Russia from full participation in the future security of Europe. As a result of our study, a “Partnership for Peace” would be recommended to the NATO summit which would be open to all members of the NACC [North Atlantic Cooperation Council] including all European and NIS States [Newly Independent States].
President Yeltsin jumped in at this point and asked if he understood correctly that all countries in CEE and the NIS would, therefore, be on an equal footing and there would be a partnership and not a membership. Secretary Christopher replied, “Yes, that is the case, there would not even be an associate status.” Yeltsin replied, “This is a brilliant idea, it is a stroke of genius.”
President Yeltsin then said that this serves to dissipate all of the tension which we now have in Russia regarding East European States and their aspirations with respect to NATO. It would have been an issue for Russia particularly if it left us in a second class status. Now, under your new idea we are all equal and it will ensure equal participation on the basis of partnership.

Secretary Christopher's meeting with President Yeltsin, 10/22/93, Moscow - National Security Archive

There is absolutely no evidence that Russia at the time had any hostile or expansionist intentions toward the West. It simply wanted to be treated as an equal partner.

Though not put into a formal treaty, it is obvious from official US documents that the understanding was that Russia would not be "ignored or excluded from full participation in the future security of Europe" but integrated in a "Partnership for Peace" which would put Russia and other newly independent former Soviet republics ("NIS") on an equal footing with NATO.

Unfortunately, as in other areas of international relations, “partnership with America” really means submission to American domination which, of course, is unacceptable to Russia.

It follows that the root of the problem is not Russia but NATO expansionism and disregard for Russia’s legitimate security concerns. Russia did not invade Finland or America. It invaded Ukraine because Ukrainian membership of NATO would have put Crimea, the Donbas region, and the Black Sea (which Russia needs for its naval bases and for access to the Mediterranean) under NATO, i.e., US control.

In addition, I’m not at all convinced that thousands of dead civilians, millions of refugees, scores of flattened cities and villages, and destroyed infrastructure, are a price worth paying for a scrap of land that Ukraine could, and should, have peacefully shared with Russia. I think even Ukrainians are beginning to have second thoughts on it.

The currency of war is blood. As families bury their dead, more Ukrainians, like Mitri in Bakhmut, will question the blood price they are paying, and ask whether it is better to pay for a ceasefire with land - or lives.

Ukraine war: 'This is just the beginning, everything is still to come' - BBC News

The fact is that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991, NATO should have disbanded. But, instead, it decided to expand, shifting its defense line eastward and seeking to draw Ukraine and other former Soviet republics into its orbit.

Indeed, when Ukraine became independent from the Soviet Union in 1991, it had no reason to feel threatened by Russia.

On the contrary, on 8 December 1991, Ukraine joined Russia and Belarus to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union. — Apollodorus

Except this is all bullshit.

Especially when the siloviks, Putin at the forefront, and not the "Westernizers" took power in Russia. You would had to have some other people in power to fulfill your fairy-tale dream of Russia becoming an ally of the West, Apollodorus. And why? Just ask yourself:

How about Crimea? The desire for Russia to annex Crimea was there all along. The aspirations to join Russia started immediately when Ukraine got it's independence. How many times have we heard here (or in the public) that Nikita Khrushchev had no right to give Crimea to Ukraine and that this meant nothing as all were in the Soviet Union?

Or how about the case of Moldova? There you have the perfect example of the strategy that Russia has implemented all along and in many places: Russian backed proxies starting an insurrection with Russia openly encouraging the Transnistrians to to obtain their independence, then having Russian soldiers (stationed in the republic) becoming "peacekeepers", but de facto backing the proxies and turning the situation into a frozen conflict. Happened in Georgia and was exceptionally successful towards Ukraine in 2014, but not afterwards.

And the list could be continued. It is simply ludicrous to argue that without a NATO, Russia wouldn't have attempted to regain dominance over their "near abroad", the former Soviet Republics. It would have. And it simply would have been more easy for Russia to do. Of course there wouldn't be this pretence of it being a response to NATO aggression, but there would be always many justifications.

The simple facts are:

With or without NATO there would be all those minorities of Russians living in former Soviet Republics (just like Serbs living in other states of Yugoslavia).

With or without NATO Russia wouldn't have change it's views about itself as a Great Power and a peer to the US.

Hence those imperialist ambitions towards the near abroad would be there with or without NATO. The fall of the Soviet Union was thus is so bizarre, because the coup attempt put Russia directly opposed to the Soviet Union. But that was a passing moment, the great tragedy for leaders like Putin: now you can see that Russia thinks it embodies everything of the Soviet Union, and rarely people think that the other former Republics would have an equal share to the heritage or the spoils of the Union.

So without a NATO, hence likely the Baltics couldn't have wiggled their way out of the Russian "sphere of influence" and wouldn't never have joined the EU and wouldn't be the success story they are.

And we would be thanking our Finlandization now and thinking how stupid West Europeans had been about Russia when they disbanded NATO. And likely we would have an alternative defence organization that Russia would see as an imminent threat to itself.

I am not interested in your war crime apologies. If philosophy has led you there, in this moral cloaca where you cannot even distinguish between an aggressive dictatorship and a defending democracy, then my advice is: burn all your philosophy books, because they made a monster out of you.

this moral cloaca where you cannot even distinguish between an aggressive dictatorship and a defending democracy — Olivier5

It is more history than philosophy which leads some of us there. Tell me more about this moral distinction, that is so clear to you and so imaginary to others. One compares levels of dishonest propaganda, deaths of civilians, abandonment of principles of justice such as torture imprisonment without trial, assassination attempts, etc, etc, and it appears to some of us that the moral high ground is unoccupied by any government. But if you berate folk for even making the comparison and insist that the difference is obvious at the same time, then you cannot expect to convince any sceptic of the righteousness of one cause over another.

it appears to some of us that the moral high ground is unoccupied by any government. — unenlightened

I am not saying that democracies are always right or that they occupy any moral high ground by virtue of being democracies. Some of them are also dysfunctional. They don't actually function as democracies, only formally so.

I am saying though, that there is no moral equivalence between 1) a ruthless militaristic dictatorship and 2) the democracy attacked by 1. That Russia is in the wrong here, and that condemning war crimes doesn't imply any russophobia whatsoever on my side, contrary to what Apo was implying, but common decency instead.

I am saying though, that there is no moral equivalence between 1) a ruthless militaristic dictatorship and 2) the democracy attacked by 1. — Olivier5

You are saying it, but do not seem to be prepared to back it up or consider comparisons made by others. And it is odd considering that the ruthless militaristic dictatorship and the attacked democracy in this case were, within my lifetime at least, one and the same nation. How is it that all the saints of the USSR lived in the West and all the sinners in the East?

You are saying it, but do not seem to be prepared to back it up or consider comparisons made by others. — unenlightened

I am prepared to back it up, if challenged. As for comparisons, those are rarely about Ukraine. They are usually about how equally destructive the US has been. But two wrongs don't make a right.

And it is odd considering that the ruthless militaristic dictatorship and the attacked democracy in this case were, within my lifetime at least, one and the same nation. How is it that all the saints of the USSR lived in the West and all the sinners in the East? — unenlightened

That is a rather slanted question. I am not trying to essentialise this conflict. There are I suppose historical and geographical reasons why the various republics who emerged from the breakdown of the USSR had diverging political evolutions. Are you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying?

Unfortunately your incredulity doesn't constitute an argument.

They are usually about how equally destructive the US has been. But two wrongs don't make a right. — Olivier5

Wherein lies the persistent, willful, misrepresentation of all such arguments since no one talking about the US has been doing so by way of 'judgement' of who's 'right'. It's about strategy, and accepting that Ukraine's defence doesn't happen in a vacuum, their choice involves assessing the relative merits of Russian influence vs American/European influence. The influence of neither not being an option.

Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world).

Who's 'right' and who's 'wrong' is for the puerile moralisers here to agonise over which flag to waive. — Isaac

:up:

Can't wait till "good" Swedish weapons explode some Kurdish or Armenian families into bloody little pieces in the hands of Turks because the Swedes were too pussy to stand up to American plans for global supremacy.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection.

Moreover, all I’m arguing is that the conflict involves two parties and that a balanced analysis/discussion requires taking into consideration both sides.

Unfortunately, we’ve got people on here who believe that only the Ukrainian/NATO side should be considered as to do otherwise would be “unprincipled” ()!

Such people are clearly IN DENIAL as they deny the truth of Ukrainian/NATO actions that may have prompted Russia to invade Ukraine.

While in some cases (Type 1, e.g., @Olivier5) this denial may be a conscious decision on grounds of spurious and unexamined “ethical principles”, in other cases (Type 2, e.g., @ssu) it fits the definition of denial as “an unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings” and seems to be rooted in psychological issues.

In addition to denial, there also seems to be a case of mental confusion (both in Type 1 and Type 2), as such individuals seem to be unable to distinguish between (a) Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine and (b) Russia’s alleged “crimes” against Ukrainian civilians after the invasion.

The facts of the matter are as follows:

1. On June 22, 1994 Russia at NATO’s invitation signed the Partnership for Peace Framework Document (PfP) that according to Clinton was "the track to NATO membership".

So, there can be no doubt that America planned to incorporate Russia into its NATO Empire. But if the purpose of NATO was to “defend its members”, against whom did NATO think it needed to “defend” its prospective member Russia??? Clearly, there was no such need, and this exposes NATO's expansionist agenda!

The truth is that Russia was in a dire economic situation and there were hopes of Western financial and technological assistance that would have come with membership in NATO and other US-EU projects. Yeltsin was an alcoholic who didn't always know what he was doing. And Clinton who as everyone knows is a highly opportunistic character, took full advantage of the situation (as did the Russian kleptocrats, oligarchs, mafia, and their Western accomplices).

2. Russia gave up on cooperation with NATO when it correctly realized that such cooperation meant submission to US domination.

3. Even if “the desire for Russia to annex Crimea was there all along”, it doesn’t mean that this desire was not legitimate, given that Crimea had been Russian since 1783!

But it isn’t my job to educate the ignorant and the uneducated. Folks that are in denial and tend not only to ignore facts but to deny them when they’re pointed out to them, can’t be helped anyway.

If you guys think that what you’re doing is “philosophy”, do carry on, by all means. All I can say is that after nearly 8K posts, this thread is getting far too repetitive and pointless, and beginning to look like some social club for the retired and the unemployed. Boring for the most part, hilarious at times, but at the end of the day, there’re much better things to do in life …. :grin:

Why is it so hard to consider the possibility that it might actually be good for a country to ask Russia to take it under its wing? Or at least to see it as a matter of their own interest to be on friendly terms with Russia?
— baker

Wondering if you still think this way??? — creativesoul

Of course.

It's the notion that one can hate and despise someone and consider them their enemy, but still expect this party to be nice and harmless that is absurd.

Apparently, the moral lines are absolutely clear between what Russia are doing and what Amnesty describe (of Turkey) as ...

an utterly callous disregard for civilian lives, launching unlawful deadly attacks in residential areas that have killed and injured civilians

We must immediately enable the latter to fight the former, all because the likes of the commentators here can't handle anything with a moral complexity greater than that of Star Wars.

Ate you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying? — Olivier5

I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. Power has no morality, but only competence, expediency, and habit. Thus I expect and see evidence of the same corruption, manipulation by oligarchs, and so on whether I am looking at the US, UK, Ukraine, or Russia. Which countries indulge in military adventures abroad at any particular moment is nothing to do with the moral fibre of the country, and everything to do with economic advantage and the possibility of profit, financial or power-wise.

Of course geography and history have a role as well, but I do not see nations foregoing any horror on purely moral grounds, but only on the grounds that they won't be able to get away with it. I am open to persuasion that say, Ukraine preferred to cede some territory rather than enter a long struggle with separatists, or that any supporters of Ukraine have done something noble and disadvantageous. Do you have an example at all?

I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened

To what extent is this judgement based on your own personal experience with different modes or types of governments? Because this strikes me as something a person would say from the safe comfort of a First World armchair.

To what extent is this judgement based on your own personal experience with different modes or types of governments? Because this strikes me as something a person would say from the safe confine of a First World armchair. — Olivier5

My personal experience of living under governments is entirely First world, and only 2 European countries at that. What is your personal experience that gives you the advantage?

I have lived and worked in many places, in Africa and Asia, including countries where the state jails or kills folks for their ideas, with total impunity. It takes some getting used to. And people in these countries do not speak so lightly about democracy being so to speak "just the same thing as dictatorship but with voting booths". They often hope it makes a difference.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the OP doesn’t seem to disallow “pro-Russian” or “anti-NATO” arguments. So, saying that an argument is “pro-Russian/anti-NATO” isn’t really a valid objection. — Apollodorus

Correct. There are obvious biases, proclivities and lenses through which we look at this war. It is tempting, because if it often true, to say that a poster here is "pro-West/Anti-Russia" or "Pro Russia/ Anti-NATO". And all varieties of such combinations.

Nevertheless, once we reach a point in which such accusations are made, I see little by way of argument that could persuade a person on any side.

There's been much discussion here, and I've only skimmed a good portion of it, but my feeling is that @Isaac is correct in the following: that we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent.

Unless we are Russian (and even then it's hard, given the current regime in Russia) we can't do much about it. And merely saying how horrible Russia is, over and over, is convenient moralizing.

I draw exceptions with people living next to Russia, but besides that, its just much easier to condemn Russia, than what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. But, people wave flags, for good and ill.

what's happening in say, Yemen, which is almost entirely the fault of the US. — Manuel

I thought that was Iran's and Saudi Arabia's fault?

Who supplies the arms to Saudi Arabia? You think SA would dare due this if they US didn't allow it?

Iran is blown way out of proportion due to Israeli interests.

Nevertheless, don't want to derail the main topic here. It's easier to condemn an enemy than admit the faults of one's own state.

This very much applies to the Russia war in Ukraine.

Anyone with a post-adolescent grasp of politics is discussing the actual outcomes and their impact on Ukraine (and the wider world). — Isaac

I don't know whom you are talking about. Who are all these guys, and where are they discussing the impact on Ukraine, or the rest of the world?

3. Even if “the desire for Russia to annex Crimea was there all along”, it doesn’t mean that this desire was not legitimate, given that Crimea had been Russian since 1783! — Apollodorus

Here we have the real apologist in action.

Giving this legitimacy to the actions of Russia, after it had recognized the independence of Ukraine on 2nd of December 1991 and afterwards when it had specifically recognized the borders of Ukraine in the Budapest memorandum shows deliberately you being a Putin troll. It seems you mentally block out what it means to recognize the independence of another state.

So according to our troll, Crimea is a different matter. Because it had been Russian since 1783!

And you're desperately clinging on to your strawman arguments. I've said that Russia sees NATO and NATO enlargement as a threat. We have seen Russia's response now when Sweden and Finland have made the application. Where I simply disagree is that without NATO, Russia would be this peaceful country that would have left it's neighbors like Ukraine alone, with their large Russian speaking minorities. That simply wouldn't have happened and didn't happen under the former KGB-men now in charge of Russia. And you have been quite active in making their case.

If someone like Boris Nemtsov and his supporters would have been the leaders of Russia, that peaceful coexistence could have happened, even if the Chechens surely would have been smashed (as being inside the borders of Russia proper). But that's a lot of historical what if -thinking.

I have lived and worked in many places, in Africa and Asia, including countries where the state jails or kills folks for their ideas, with total impunity. It takes some getting used to. — Olivier5

Excellent! Perhaps you can share your experience a little. what countries are top of the moral pops? My feeling is that I would prefer a wealthy country to a poor one, a stable one to an unstable one, a well organised one to a badly organised one, a peaceful one to a violent, and so on. and I feel I know in a general way how to start estimating these things. Do you think of the morality of a country in these terms or in some other way?

Iran is blown way out of proportion due to Israeli interests. — Manuel

Likely in this case because of Sunni fears. Saudi Arabia has a history of entangling itself into the affairs of Yemen. Earlier the threat was Egypt and Nasserism threatening Saudi Arabia's "interests" in Yemen. Now Egypt has been replaced by Iran, but otherwise it's quite like the North Yemen Civil War in the 1960's.

On the royalist side, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Israel supplied military aid, and Britain gave covert support, while the republicans were supported by Egypt (then formally known as the United Arab Republic) and were supplied warplanes from the Soviet Union. Both foreign irregular and conventional forces were involved. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser supported the republicans with as many as 70,000 Egyptian troops and weapons. Despite several military actions and peace conferences, the war sank into a stalemate by the mid-1960s.

Who are all these guys, and where are they discussing the impact on Ukraine, or the rest of the world? — Olivier5

It's all we've ever been discussing. I can't be responsible for the fact that you're too stupid to understand the conversation.

Do you think of the morality of a country in these terms or in some other way? — unenlightened

I would add a number of unalienable rights to the list, such as the right of thinking and saying more or less what you want to, the right to private property, protection against arbitrary violence and so forth.

we are responsible for what our governments do and can act on that to some extent. — Manuel

How?

people in these countries do not speak so lightly about democracy being so to speak "just the same thing as dictatorship but with voting booths". They often hope it makes a difference. — Olivier5

I'm sure @unenlightened will follow whatever line of argument he sees fit, but by way of not losing an important point I think was raised... unenlightened did not reference 'democracy'.

The point (as I understood it) was about governments. Actual governments. People living in some tyrannical dictatorship may well want 'democracy', but that's not the same as saying they'd want the American government, or the UK government. Nor is it the same as saying they'd want those governments for the world at large.

Unless you're arguing 'might makes right', then simply pointing to a government individuals tend to prefer is insufficient ground to make a moral argument.

The point unenlightened was making, which I thought a pertinent one, was that there's insufficient gap between actual governments to justify the sort of extreme moral caricatures being drawn here. That's not the same as saying democracy is no better than tyranny, it's saying that actual existent democratic governments are insufficiently better than actual tyrannical governments to justify a certain level of moral side-taking.

Here is the background, and it's clearly about dictatorship vs democracy:

Are you denying that Russia is presently a ruthless dictatorship, and/or that Ukraine is a democracy? If not, what are you saying?
— Olivier5

I am denying that there is a vast moral difference between them on the grounds that I do not see a vast moral difference between governments in general. — unenlightened