My position has always been to stick to the facts. That's why I've been trying to look at things from a historical perspective. Military conflicts don't fall out of the sky. They have historical roots, often going back hundreds of years. So, history shouldn't be ignored.

But I agree that America isn’t in a brilliant position either. The fact that its empire is expanding (for now) shouldn’t be misread as a sign of strength. On the contrary, if you look beyond the propaganda, there are clear signs of decay.

The pharaonic pyramid is a central feature of the Great Seal of the United States and of dollar bills.

The Great Seal of The United States - Wikipedia

And “E pluribus unum” (“Out of many, one”) and "Novus ordo seclorum" ("New order of the ages") may refer to the Union of North American states, but it can also be extended to all the states in the world, depending on one's political and ideological agenda.

The idea came from Charles Thomson, a member of the American Philosophical Society. So, I for one think that it may be worth investigating America’s imperialist ambitions.

In any case, Europe is sucking up to America only because it fell under US military occupation and economic and financial domination after WW2. But there’s no way big countries like China, India, Brazil, and others will submit to US rule.

There is mounting international resistance to America’s global empire in all areas including in economy and finance.

The dollar's dominance is already eroding as central banks diversify into the Chinese yuan and smaller currencies.

Russia and China are developing a new global reserve currency with other BRICS nations (India, Brazil, South Africa), etc.

The bottom line is that America isn’t what it used to be in the 50’s. It has drastically dumbed down, just look at its current leaders! It’s still got the technology but it no longer has the intelligence to achieve much.

Meanwhile, other countries who don’t have the technology, have developed enough intelligence to devise and mount credible and effective resistance to US leaders and their pharaonic-jihadi ambitions.

Their military capabilities are fast improving. Even if Germany will never again become a military power, Russia, China, India, and others will.

It looks like payback time is going to come sooner rather than later. America may or may not be able to save itself, but it won’t be able to save its empire, that’s for sure .... :smile:

You’re welcome. But I’m not "apologizing for the murder of civilians" AT ALL.

What I’m saying is that since the Russians are taking Crimea and the Donbas anyway, it would have made more sense (and saved more lives!) for Ukraine to accept Russia’s requests from the start.

Even Ukrainians, at least the thinking among them, realize that their war isn’t getting very far:

Remaining in positions smashed to pieces over many months just for the sake of staying there does not make sense," Serhiy Gaidai, governor of the wider region, said on Ukrainian television on Friday

If they know that, why do they do it?

My take is that Zelensky (1) hasn’t got a clue and (2) he’s being pushed by the Natonazis in Washington, London, and Warsaw to wage total jihad on Russia.

But at a rate of 300 to 500 military casualties a day, he isn’t going to last very long, is he?

In theory, he could retreat and start a guerrilla war from Poland or Finland but that can go seriously wrong.

The fact is that Russia made some mistakes in the beginning but it hasn’t even mobilized yet. If Russia does (1) order general mobilization and (2) gets mad at Ukraine, the Ukrainians will be in deep trouble.

That’s why Zelensky’s childish attempts to threaten and intimidate Russia while hiding behind Biden might actually backfire. This isn't "apologizing". It's a fact-based logical observation.

perhaps you haven't listened to Apollodorus, who has promoted the idea that Russia has the most justification for Crimea. — ssu

Well, I think compared to other people's claims that Crimea belongs to NATO (or America), Russia's claim is far more justified, especially considering that Crimea was Russian for several centuries and only ended up being "Ukrainian" after Ukraine declared itself independent in 1992. :grin:

Read the news. 90% of the buildings in Sievierodonetsk have been destroyed by the Russians. — Tate

I think you should start by reading @Oliver's comments first. He said:

The current RF preferred tactic as seen in Ukraine is to seek the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military. — Olivier5

In the case of the Russian aggression, one has the impression of an enterprise of total annihilation of the territory to be conquered, civilians and soldiers, men, buildings and things. — Olivier5

1. Destroying 90% of buildings in one town - or even in several towns - doesn't amount to the "complete and total annihilation of Ukraine's civilians and military" by any stretch of imagination. That's just Natonazi BS.

2. "Destroyed building" doesn't mean "building razed to the ground with the residents inside". The Russians do sometimes hit residential areas when these are close to the real target which is military facilities, industrial complexes, or troops passing through.

But the real bombing comes after all or most residents have been evacuated and there are only troops taking position in residential areas.

3. Ukraine has a population of about 40m and a normal death rate of 14.4 per 1,000, i.e. 1.44%.

Map of European Countries by Death Rate

If the Russians have killed, say, 40,000 Ukrainians since Feb 24, that’s less than 7% of the total annual peace-time mortality and only 0.1% of the total population.

Plus, don't forget that the Ukrainians have the option to cease fire. Zelensky has nothing to achieve by carrying on and escalating - except perhaps to stay in power for as long as possible .....

As things stand, people generally defend their egos, and they do so with their lives and property, and the lives and property of others. — baker

Having an ego isn’t necessarily a problem any more than having a brain or hands and feet is a problem.
The problem is an ego that has been rendered dysfunctional or defective through exposure to miseducation, disinformation, and propaganda.

Such an ego undergoes a process of stultification and zombification and is no longer an ego that forms a harmonious part of yourself, but a foreign body that is used by external agents to remote-control you.

Denying history amounts to being in denial and being in denial means to exclude oneself from an aspect of reality that would otherwise give you a more balanced perception of what’s going on.

The whole purpose of propaganda is to distort reality and once a person’s perception of reality has been distorted, he or she becomes vulnerable to psychological manipulation.

In addition to disinformation, emotions play a key role in the stultification and zombification process. As people often act on emotional impulse instead of rational thought, propaganda aims to stir up emotions, such as anger and hatred, that can be channeled toward forms of behavior desired by the authors of the propaganda.

This is why Plato says that the emotional part of man must be ruled by the reasoning part, and not the other way round. In turn, reason must be guided by wisdom (or common sense) and justice.

However, you can only be truly wise and just when you know the facts. Knowing the facts is of paramount importance. And that includes history. Everything that exists in this world, unless it has inexplicably appeared out of the blue, has a history. Individual humans have a history, and so do groups of individuals or nations.

Knowledge of history is absolutely necessary especially when we try to form an opinion of territorial disputes like the Ukraine case, which essentially, is about territory. The whole conflict really boils down to both US-NATO and Russia claiming Ukraine as “their” territory.

Given that Ukraine and Russia used to be one country, whereas America is a non-European, and arguably, anti-European foreign power, history is on Russia’s side IMO.

And this is precisely why the pro-NATO camp are so allergic to history, because it exposes inconvenient facts that force Natoists to admit that they may not be quite as right as they think they are. Hence they’re in denial and this disqualifies them from being objective debaters.

But it’s still instructive to see what strategies and tactics they’re deploying as part of their defense mechanism …. :smile:

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing. — baker

Those who have read Plato understand that the secret in life is to know about the past without being stuck in the past. People who’re stuck in the past forget that National Socialism or Nazism has long mutated beyond recognition.

Classical Nazism (or something close to it) no longer exists except in places like China. And even there it is applied under the guise of Marxist-Leninist state capitalism.

In most places, for example, in America, Nazism (of which Natoism is a manifestation) is disguised as “liberal capitalism” and promoted under the false flag of “democracy and freedom”. But a growing number of people are beginning to realize that so-called “liberalism” is really only the thin end of the illiberal wedge that leads to natural resources, the economy, finance, culture, and information being monopolized by a few top players who together form the apex of the ruling class.

In this context, we can see some interesting developments in the US:

The Texas Republican Party just voted 'overwhelmingly' to reject the legitimacy of Biden's 2020 election win – Business Insider

Poll: Biden disapproval hits new high as more Americans say they would vote for Trump

And in Europe:

Voices: Macron’s defeat doesn’t only weaken France – it has serious implications for Europe - Independent

Ancient Egypt was a great civilization that was eventually defeated after staying strong for thousands of years. America isn’t even two and a half centuries old, and isn’t a great civilization. There is no way it will last very long. It has done everything it could to weaken Europe and other continents and now they are striking back.

In other words, once again, America has screwed up and this time like never before. So, yeah, there will be a new world order pretty soon, but not of the kind that senile old men like Biden imagine ….

The current RF preferred tactic as seen in Ukraine is to seek the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military. — Olivier5

Nonsense. If Russia wanted “the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians”, it would have done so by now. So far, only a few thousand got killed - out of forty million!

Plus, you seem to forget that the Ukrainians were given the choice to surrender. Which, incidentally, raises the question of why they haven’t done so, given that razed cities and villages is the only alternative.

It’s understandable that the Ukrainians want to defend their country, but how are they “defending” it if it gets totally destroyed – and, possibly, still gets taken over either wholly or partly???

So, this Zelensky guy and his government just don’t make any sense.

On top of it, shameless Zelensky is now asking British festival-goers to fund his war!

Volodymyr Zelensky makes surprise appearance at Glastonbury - The Telegraph

Where have all the zillions of dollars gone that he got from America? And how much of that mountain of cash winds up in the Swiss (and Israeli) accounts of oligarchs like Kolomoisky that helped Zelensky to come to power?

I think this thread can use a little bit of French love. — Olivier5

Yep. Marry your mother if you can, or your semi-mummified school teacher, if that fails .... :grin:

Who will find the best legend for it? — Olivier5

“Damn it! He’s had too much Italian garlic and Chinese frogs (AGAIN)!”

The 'stakes' being US hegemony, which is worth as much global death and suffering as required for its maintenance. — Streetlight

Wars can be unpredictable. America’s current pharaoh may yet become the biggest collateral casualty of his jihad on Russia. Right now, the Saudis have him by his cojones and no one knows how long he’s going to last. Probably, not as long as Putin?

Biden on Gas Prices: Bashing Exxon Profits, Meeting With Saudi Prince – Business Insider

Not only he’s fallen off his bike, but more voters are now willing to vote for Trump than for Sleepy Joe who, let’s face it, will soon be asleep for good:

Poll: Biden disapproval hits new high as more Americans say they would vote for Trump

Meanwhile, Russia has got a large pile of foreign currency and gold reserves, as well as emergency funds. It has reduced to a minimum its foreign debt and its dependence on foreign borrowing, and it has become a net creditor on international money markets. That’s why America hates Russia, because it doesn’t depend on US banks and can't be blackmailed into submission to US rule!

If Russia keeps developing its industries for key technologies, especially in the defense sector, it will not only do just fine, but it can even come out of this stronger.

IMO Russia is becoming a key challenger of American hegemony and should be supported by all who are against an US-controlled unipolar world order (or world government by Big Oil, Big Bucks, and Big Guns).

I suspect that Russia is not included in Russel's 'domination of the White Man' — unenlightened

I don't see why it should be. Russia has been there since prehistoric times. White America and Australia were imported from other parts of the world.

I think you're rebutting your own "point" quite nicely. So, you're laughing at yourself ....

it could be that the reason why this thread has so much verbal violence on display is NOT that it is merely a political thread (hence non philosophical) but on the contrary, that we are circling around a deeply metaphysical question, that hasn’t been teased out yet. — Olivier5

On the contrary, I think it's been not only teased out, but spread all over the place:

... caca ... caca ... the biggest caca ... — Olivier5

... dogmatic bullshit ... — Streetlight

... load of bullshit ... — creativesoul

... shit ... — Streetlight

... shitty ... — neomac

Sounds very much like anger and frustration to me. Induced by lack of social life and too much pro-NATO propaganda .... :grin:

Well, let's see ....

Mark Leonard: Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, former Chairman of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Geoeconomics. Essays published in Foreign Affairs, the Financial Times, the New York Times, Le Monde, Süddeutsche Zeitung, El Pais, Gazeta Wyborcza, Foreign Policy, the New Statesman, the Daily Telegraph, The Economist, Time, Newsweek.

Ivan Krastev: Member of Open Society Foundations’ global advisory board, former executive director of the International Commission on the Balkans, editor-in-chief of the Bulgarian edition of Foreign Policy. Awarded the Jean Améry Prize for European essay writing.

ECFR: named "Best New Think Tank in the World" for 2009 and 2010 by the University of Pennsylvania's annual Global "Go-To Think-Tanks" report.

neomac: ............................................ ????

So, yeah. You've definitely "proved" your "point"! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

I've explained that already. Read people's comments or go study some history!

And while you're at it, I think you should get out of your WW1 bunker for a change and acquaint yourself with some real facts instead of swallowing your own propaganda:

This is from the European Council on Foreign Relations:

ECFR’s research shows that, while Europeans feel great solidarity with Ukraine and support sanctions against Russia, they are split about the long-term goals. They divide between a “Peace” camp (35 per cent of people) that wants the war to end as soon as possible, and a “Justice” camp that believes the more pressing goal is to punish Russia (25 per cent of people). In all countries, apart from Poland, the “Peace” camp is larger than the “Justice” camp.

Peace versus Justice: The coming European split over the war in Ukraine – ECFR

Clearly, in the real world, NATO jihadis are a small, and diminishing, minority. This may explain why they're so frustrated and angry …. :grin:

your efforts to justify Russian aggression are equally shit and no less trash. — Streetlight

In other words, your own pronouncements are the only "non-shit and non-trash" ones here, or just "less shit and less trash" than those of others? :grin:

It's also pretty funny coming from someone whose post history in this thread is littered with jeers made for infants. — Streetlight

I think either he's using multiple accounts or he was delivered in the same discount pack of three as ssu and Christoffer. As I said, the CIA may have the technology, but not the intelligence. And even the technology is probably made in China from parts made in North Korea or Pakistan .... :grin:

But then you immediately continue... — ssu

And your point is???

If a sister is a turncoat it doesn't follow that she ceases to be a sister. As a matter of fact, many Russians and Ukrainians still see each other as family, even now. Some literally so, as they have relatives on both sides.

In any case, ordinary Ukrainians are intelligent enough to understand that the conflict is the creation of politicians and they wish their leaders could just shake hands and make peace.

Of course, low-intelligence NATO jihadis and bots are a different matter .... :wink:

Russians both think of Ukraine as a sister nation but accept it's reasonable to invade the country for land? That doesn't make much sense to me. — Judaka

Well, of course, it wouldn't make much sense to you if (a) you ignore history and (b) you refuse to think your argument through.

Russians do indeed see Ukraine as a sister nation, but one who has joined the West against Russia. In other words, a traitor. It doesn't say anywhere that a sister nation (or its government) can't be seen as a turncoat.

Of course, it is needles to say (except for you), that Germany invaded Poland, which started WW2. — ssu

Of course, it is needless to say (except for you), that Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939 has got absolutely nothing to do with Russia invading Ukraine in 2022! :rofl:

Plus, you keep "forgetting" Poland's invasion and occupation of Ukraine before that.

And, of course, you "forgot" to answer my point. Are there any legitimate invasions or not???

Showing that brotherly love now to your sister, right? — ssu

You're becoming delusional again. Ukraine isn't "my sister" anymore than it is yours! :rofl:

Plus, you "forget" that Americans didn't treat one another any better in the Civil War. This may be news to you, but in the real world, brothers (and sisters) do fight.

I was talking (a) in historical terms and (b) in response to @Judaka's suggestion that Russia's views of Crimea and Ukraine are shaped by "Putin's propaganda".

What NATO activists and jihadis (and other ignoramuses) fail to comprehend is that Putin's views of Ukraine are shaped by the long-established (and historically-supported) views of the Russian people, not the other way round!

Then stop complaining about Russia — baker

:up:

it is clear that the grip of Western mainstream media and governments is loosening. — Judaka

From what can be seen here, I don't think the grip of Western media and governments is "loosening" at all. Quite the reverse, actually.

Similarly, the Russian public seems to support Putin because of the effectiveness of his propaganda. — Judaka

Well, that's where you're demonstrating your unexamined anti-Russian bias again!

Russians don't see things differently "because of the effectiveness of Putin's propaganda". They see things differently because they're Russians and have a different history from yours. Russians have always seen Crimea as Russian and Ukraine as a sister nation together with Belarus.

This view is supported by history which shows that Russia proper, Belarus ("White Russia"), and Ukraine ("Russian Borderland"), were one country called Russia or Rus (see Wikipedia, Kievan Rus). They only became separated because of foreign invasion and occupation.

Obviously, this fact is inconvenient to the Western narrative according to which Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine belongs to NATO, and NATO belongs to America. But to claim that Russians don't have a history and that everything is "Putin's propaganda" (presumably, even Wikipedia articles!) is too preposterous for anyone to take seriously.

This year, June 6 went by, no mention of the Invasion of Normandy. Normally in the time around June 6, national televisions show documentaries about D-Day, the daily film is "Saving Private Ryan", and such. But not this year. — baker

Correct. Zelensky says Russia is “repeating the Holocaust”, the West is saying that Putin wants to “recreate the Russian Empire”, analysts are comparing the fighting in Ukraine to “WW1”, etc., etc.

It doesn't matter that many who know history better than Zelensky disagree with his equating Russia's invasion with the Holocaust:

President Zelensky: Stop invoking the Holocaust - Jerusalem Post

Regardless of reality, history is being reshaped to fit the politically-convenient, media-dictated narrative of the day that justifies, promotes, and glorifies America's imperialist new world order.

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube

And, lest we forget, some would have us believe that Putin is "animated by Stalin's malevolent spirit" .... :grin:

It's very rare that we can argue that some invasion was legitimate. — ssu

That sounds like an admission that some invasions ARE legitimate! :grin:

...to refer everything that has happened in history. Right. — ssu

No, NOT "everything". From what I see, your tendency seems to be to "forget" historical events that undermine your argument, but selectively remember events you think support it.

In my mind history isn't at all ethical. — ssu

No one said history is ethical. My point was that in order to establish the legitimacy or otherwise of an action, you need to look at the past actions that preceded it, i.e. at HISTORY. This is normal practice in national law as much as in international relations

If one person gets away with murder, should the next person accused be automatically acquitted? — Judaka

If many persons get away with murder, then (a) your system can't claim to be consistent or just and (b) you need to explain why you make an exception.

Pakistan invaded Indian Kashmir, China invaded Tibet, Turkey invaded Cyprus, Turkey continues to invade Kurdish territories (with NATO approval!), forty million Kurds continue to have no state of their own, etc., etc. ....

As I've repeatedly said, it looks like the principle governing the current world order is that "might is right" and that something is "legitimate" (or at least "acceptable") by virtue of its serving the interests of America and its EU-NATO empire.

Lumping everything together into one abomination of anger in text certainly isn't helping to turn these discussions into something productive. — Tzeentch

Correct. Some seem to believe that getting angry and calling other people names somehow "proves" that they are "right". As if the proof of philosophy wasn't reason but emotion. "I emote, therefore, I'm right" seems to be the absolute apogee of media-induced (and -approved) thought these days .... :smile:

To argue I’m in the “pro-NATO” camp is untrue, and lazy. — Xtrix

My comment referred to the "pro-NATO camp" in general. Whether you personally belong to it, is a separate issue.

Not only don’t I “dismiss” them, I hold them. — Xtrix

Well, I'm glad to hear that ....

We've got new tools now that allow the vast majority of people to have a different and previously unattainable perspective. Better to make use of that and do something new. — Judaka

I think that's much easier said than done. And, funny enough, it's the pro-NATO camp that keeps bringing history into it by constantly equating Putin with Stalin, Hitler, or when that fails, with the Czars.

But when the other side mentions history, all of a sudden it's "Oh, no, you can't do that!"

Plus, in order to determine the legitimacy or otherwise of territorial claims, for example Crimea, you can't avoid looking at the history of it. No rational person would turn to Twitter or TikTok to decide on matters of this kind. :smile:

To do so also undermines the fact of the very real and very immoral role the US (and, therefore, NATO) has played in this crime. — Xtrix

Well, not necessarily. If the US and its NATO Empire “have played a very real role”, then they may well have caused the conflict, either partly or wholly.

We mustn't forget that Zelensky was backed by dodgy media tycoons and oligarchs and was a media man himself. If I had the Western media on my side and got zillions of dollars from America like Zelensky has, I would probably have the best and most "credible" propaganda in the world.

The way I see it, the whole point of philosophy – and of common sense in general – is to look beyond appearances. Unfortunately, some seem to be stuck at an a priory level where they allow NATO’s anti-Russian jihadi mythology to shape their perception of reality without making the slightest attempt to look into the truth of it.

One major problem with NATO seems to be that it hypocritically gives its members free hand to deal with their ethnic minorities as they please (see Turkey’s treatment of Kurds), while using minorities in non-NATO countries to create division and conflict as part of established divide-and-rule policy (see Albanians in Yugoslavia).

That’s exactly what the West has been doing in Ukraine and even in Russia where it has encouraged separatism and opposition to the central government for decades.

So, arguably, the Ukraine conflict is a logical, and entirely predictable, consequence of US-NATO expansion and meddling in other nations’ affairs.

The Pope himself has said that the danger is that we only see what is on the surface and “not the whole drama that is unfolding behind this war, which was perhaps in some way either provoked or not prevented. And I register an interest in testing and selling weapons. Basically, this is what is at stake".

Ukraine war 'perhaps in some way either provoked or not prevented,' says Pope Francis – CNN

IMO the Pope seems to understand political philosophy, and philosophy in general, much better than the pro-NATO political activists on here.

In any case, he’s got a degree in philosophy and is highly respected by millions around the world. His views shouldn’t be uncritically dismissed on a philosophy forum.

What a load of bullshit. — creativesoul

Something isn’t “bullshit” just because you say so. Perhaps you’ve run out of arguments. If you had any in the first place, that is. :wink:

not every fifth Iranian died because of the invasion, like what happened to the Polish. — ssu

The issue wasn't "how many died" but the legitimacy of the invasion!

And, of course, you just "happen" to forget to count how many Ukrainians died as a result of Polish invasions and occupation. You also "happen" to forget that it was the Ukrainians that asked to be incorporated into the Russian Empire to escape the Poles .... :grin:

Well, to me, this only demonstrates that you guys have zero interest in objectivity and truth.

If you’re saying that I said countries should be “given back to the Neanderthals”, then that’s a deliberate distortion or lie.

What I did say, very clearly and repeatedly, is that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

I also said that (1) this must be applied on the merits of each particular case, (2) no one says it must be applied by force of arms, and (3) nor can force or threat of force (or violence) be ruled out.

In other words, the principle should be applied if, when, and to the extent that, it is feasible.

I even gave concrete examples: Tibet, annexed by China in 1951, should be returned to the Tibetan people; North Cyprus, invaded and occupied by Turkey in 1974, should be returned to the Cypriots; Kurdistan, occupied by Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, should be returned to the Kurds.

These are very well-known and clear-cut cases that IMO even ignorant and unthinking pro-NATO activists can understand.

Four million Finns have an oversized country to live in. In contrast, forty million Kurds have no state of their own and are being suppressed, attacked, murdered, and jailed by the Turkish government on a daily basis. Yet Kurds that resist Turkish occupation and atrocities against their own people are labeled “terrorists” by the same Western powers, including NATO, that are opposed to Russia taking back Crimea and the Donbas.

Though Tibet’s annexation by China and Cyprus’ occupation by Turkey have never been recognized by the UN, the UN is doing absolutely nothing about it, and even less about Kurdistan. The only UN member that supports an independent Kurdistan is Israel, and even that is limited to Iraqi Kurdistan, leaving out most of Kurdish territory that is under Turkish occupation.

The fact is that the UN, and the US-created world order in general, is not an order based on justice but on self-interest. By definition, it pushes the agenda of those member states that have the most power and influence, from the US down. Those that are at the bottom of the system, e.g. the Kurds, have absolutely no rights and no say.

And nope, Russia’s annexation of Crimea is not even remotely similar to Brits taking Australia from the Aboriginals. If anything, the conflict in Ukraine is more like a civil war within what historically has been one country, i.e. Russia.

In any case, your concept of “justice” seems to be worse than risible …. :grin:



:up:

It's just fine if Putin does the same... — creativesoul

Nonsense. Killing a few thousand (most of them in combat) out of 40 million is NOT "the same" at all.

Plus, Ukraine used to be part of Russia. Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were one country with the capital at Kiev and called "Russian Land" (ро́усьскаѧ землѧ, Rusiskae Zemle) or short, Rus. "Rus" or "Russian" was the ethnonym used by all three populations to refer to themselves (see Wikipedia, Kievan Rus). No resemblance whatsoever to what happened in Australia!

Fact is, Russia’s demands were absolutely clear and IMO legitimate:

To Ukraine:
Recognize Crimea as Russian.
Recognize ethnic-Russian Donetsk and Luhansk as independent republics.
Declare neutrality.

To NATO:
Roll back from Eastern Europe.
Stay out of Ukraine.

Ukraine’s and NATO’s answer was “no”. Therefore, Ukraine and the West consciously chose war. Therefore, they must acknowledge their share of responsibility for the conflict.

IMO, the only thing that remains to be established is how much responsibility the West should acknowledge. Many analysts believe the West bears most of the responsibility, given that the conflict arose from NATO expansion (proposed by NATO in the early 1990’s and promised to Ukraine in 2008).

'A joke explained is a joke lost' — Wayfarer

Agreed. But if it was just a "joke", why did @jorndoe feel a need to offer his services as your lawyer? :smile:



Creativesoul: I'm not a Christian. Therefore, I'm right.

Baker: I'm not a Buddhist. Therefore, I'm right.

Wayfarer: I'm a Buddhist. Therefore I'm right.

:grin:

Australia belonged to its indigenous Aboriginal inhabitants for 60,000 years. Then the Brits invaded in the 1700’s, massacred most of the natives and stole their land.

Recommended reading:

Massacres, human ears and a 'head collector': white atrocities against Australian Aborigines - Daily Mail

Australia continues to destroy the Aboriginals and their culture (in 2020!):

An ancient Aboriginal site was blasted away by a mining company. Here’s why that was allowed – Australian Geographic

To cover up their crimes, some Australians have apparently converted to Buddhism and are calling Putin a “malevolent spirit” to deflect attention from themselves.

IMO the reality is that the true malevolent spirit is the spirit of British Imperialism that is now animating sections of the American establishment and its client-states including Australia and England ....

If an invasion is necessary as part of a defensive war, then of course it is legitimate. Germany felt threatened by Stalinist Russia. To attack Russia, the Germans needed to pass through Poland. What else do you expect them to have done? Jump over it, maybe??? :grin:

Besides, in 1941 Britain and Russia invaded Iran and divided it between themselves.

What exactly makes you think it’s OK for Britain and Russia to invade and divide Iran in 1941, but not for Germany and Russia to invade and divide Poland in 1939???

Plus, you keep forgetting that Poland itself had invaded and divided Ukraine earlier!

As I said, under Polish-Lithuanian occupation, Ukraine was heavily colonized with Poles. That was exactly why the eastern half of Ukraine asked to be incorporated into Russia in the 1600's. The western half was taken by Russia from the Poles in the following century. Without Russia, Ukraine wouldn't even exist today. It would be divided between Poland-Lithuania, Austria, and Turkey.

And anyway, how does Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 amount to “proof” that it is wrong for Russia to invade Ukraine in 2022???

You make no sense whatsoever.

What's clearly needed is the much more firm, down-to-earth explanation that he's been possessed by the ghost of a long dead dictator. Much more reasonable. — Isaac

You mustn't forget that @Wayfarer is an old hippie from Aussieland. Some take belief in "malevolent spirits" very seriously in that part of the world ..... :smile:

Can't you read or something? I said very clearly:

The Germans were encircled on all sides by France, Russia, and the British Empire. Stalin had started war preparations against Germany back in 1926, long before Hitler came to power. Stalin's Communist International (COMINTERN) aimed to create a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe. Invading Poland was the logical step toward invading Russia in a defensive war. — Apollodorus

You keep forgetting that it was Britain that declared war on Germany in 1914. So, arguably, Germany fought a defensive war that started with WW1.

In any case, the fact is that NATO was created in 1949 for the express purpose of keeping Communist Russia out of Western Europe. For exactly the same reason, Germany invaded Russia in 1941!

What makes you think it’s OK for Western Europe and America to see Communist Russia as an enemy in 1949, but not for Germany to do the same eight years earlier?

Are you saying that an independent Germany can’t see Communist Russia as an enemy in 1941, but an US-occupied Germany must do so in 1949??? :rofl:

If ethnic Russians in Ukraine are "invaders from previous periods" as you claim, then so are ethnic Poles, Lithuanians, Tatars, Austrians, Jews, and many others.

Under Polish-Lithuanian occupation, Ukraine was heavily colonized with Poles. That was exactly why the eastern half of Ukraine asked to be incorporated into Russia in the 1600's. The western half was taken by Russia from the Poles in the following century. Without Russia, Ukraine wouldn't even exist today. It would be divided between Poland-Lithuania, Austria, and Turkey.

So, obviously, you have no knowledge of the geography, history, or politics of the region. Are you sure your comments aren't written by @ssu? :rofl:

Anyway, as I said, read what proper analysts have to say and educate yourself.

This is from the Daily Beast (which I don't think is a “Putinist” publication!):

A Judgment Day Is Coming for Zelensky – Daily Beast

From what I see, Zelensky definitely seems to be either a liar or simply delusional or deranged. Before the war started, he told the world to calm down as there wasn’t going to be any invasion. When the invasion did start, he said that “the end of the world has come”. Now he’s trying to deny that he ever said anything and he’s accusing Biden of lying.

Ukraine hits back at Biden’s ‘absurd’ remark that Zelensky ‘didn’t want to hear’ US intel on Russia – The Independent

Here’s Zelensky’s statement of February 22, 2022:

“With regards to being on a military footing, we understand there will be no war. There will not be an all-out war against Ukraine, and there will not be a broad escalation from Russia. If there is, then we will put Ukraine on a war footing.”

Ukraine's President says he believes there will be no war with Russia - CNN

Even more bizarrely, Zelensky said he received a request from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry to consider breaking diplomatic relations with Russia. His reply was “I will be considering this, and not only this, but also the effective actions we can take with regards to the escalation by Russia”.

In other words, (1) he denied the possibility of an invasion and (2) he failed to order any military preparations.

His main concern at the time was that talking about the possibility of an invasion would be detrimental to Ukraine’s economy! So, clearly, something is wrong with Zelensky and his government, and the matter needs to be investigated: who exactly is Zelensky, who are the people behind him, his advisers, his collaborators, the foreign interests involved???

Note how he speaks of his own foreign ministry almost as if it was some foreign power. Who exactly controls Ukraine's foreign ministry?

Does the assassination of Putin's political opponents(who are Russian citizens) influence your view? — creativesoul

1. You mean "alleged assassination"!

2. Does an alleged "assassination" influence my view on NATO's stated aim of "keeping America in Europe, Russia out, and Germany down"? Of course not. Why on earth should it?

3. NATO was created in 1949. Putin was born in 1952. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Putin isn't responsible for NATO or its constant expansion .... :grin:

So, what you're saying is that it's OK for America to pursue a policy of assassination of political opponents, but not for Russia!

Anyway, if you find other people's reply to your rhetorical questions "disappointing", then don't bother asking rhetorical questions! :grin:

Do you trust that Putin is an honest goodwilled actor in all this? Does the assassination of his political enemies influence your view? — creativesoul

That's just rhetorical nonsense, isn't it? Presumably, by "goodwilled actor" you mean someone that sucks up to Washington and Wall Street?!

And, of course, you just "happen" to be totally unaware of the numerous US assassination attempts against foreign leaders!

List of assassinations by the United States - Wikipedia

What would you suggest be necessarily included for a long lasting treaty between Ukraine and Russia? — creativesoul

Nothing more than what has already been suggested by experienced and knowledgeable diplomats and analysts: (1) give Crimea and ethnic-Russian parts of Ukraine to Russia and (2) keep Ukraine out of NATO. Unfortunately, this isn't possible unless and until America gets kicked out of Europe, by Europeans.

I agree with that. And I would add give back Palestine to the Palestinians, Russia to the Russians, and Ukraine to the Ukrainians. — Olivier5

1. You may "agree" with that for rhetorical purposes. But you aren't doing it!!! :grin:

2. By all means, give Ukraine to the Ukrainians. But not to NATO and America. And not Crimea and the ethnic-Russian areas.

Do you think the invasion of Poland by Hitler and Stalin was legitimate too? — Olivier5

Again, you're exposing your duplicity and ignorance of history.

The Germans were encircled on all sides by France, Russia, and the British Empire. Stalin had started war preparations against Germany back in 1926, long before Hitler came to power. Stalin's Communist International (COMINTERN) aimed to create a Soviet-controlled United States of Europe. Invading Poland was the logical step toward invading Russia in a defensive war.

And you conveniently forget Poland’s invasion and occupation of Ukraine in 1569:

A major rebellion of self-governed Ukrainian Cossacks inhabiting south-eastern borderlands of the [Polish-Lithuanian] Commonwealth rioted against Polish and Catholic oppression of Orthodox Ukraine in 1648, in what came to be known as the Khmelnytsky Uprising. It resulted in a Ukrainian request, under the terms of the Treaty of Pereyaslav, for protection by the Russian Tsar. In 1651, in the face of a growing threat from Poland, [Ukrainian military commander] Khmelnytsky asked the Tsar to incorporate Ukraine as an autonomous duchy under Russian protection. – Wikipedia

In other words, you haven’t got a clue. Alternatively, you’ve got zero interest in facts, which IMO is even worse ….

Very funny. You seem to be related to @ssu, after all. Or maybe to that clown Zelensky. :rofl:

The fact is that there is very little knowledge of history, geography, and politics in this discussion, and even less serious analysis and objectivity.

The way I see it, most objective analysts ascribe some responsibility for the conflict to the West.

According to John Mearsheimer, Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago,

The United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. – Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West’s Fault

See also:

There is no question that Vladimir Putin started the war and is responsible for how it is being waged. But why he did so is another matter. The mainstream view in the West is that he is an irrational, out-of-touch aggressor bent on creating a greater Russia in the mould of the former Soviet Union. Thus, he alone bears full responsibility for the Ukraine crisis.
But that story is wrong. The West, and especially America, is principally responsible for the crisis which began in February 2014. It has now turned into a war that not only threatens to destroy Ukraine, but also has the potential to escalate into a nuclear war between Russia and NATO.

(Originally published in The Economist, March 19, 2022.)

John Mearsheimer On Why The West Is Principally Responsible For The Ukrainian Crisis

Incidentally, the West calls Moroccan and British mercenaries fighting in Ukraine “heroes” and Kurds fighting Turkish occupation “terrorists”. And NATO keeps saying that "Turkey has legitimate security concerns", but Russia doesn’t.

Yet some still believe in the "objectivity" of the Western media and politicians!

As I said, give Tibet back to the Tibetans, Cyprus back to the Cypriots, and Kurdistan back to the Kurds, and you might stand a chance of sounding credible.

Who Crimea belongs to is open to debate. — Olivier5

Well, according to some, it isn't open to debate at all. Allegedly, Crimea belongs to Ukraine, Ukraine belongs to NATO, and NATO belongs to America .... :grin:

If all you do is listen to Western propaganda or selectively trawl through news programs to watch Ukrainian houses being shelled by Russian artillery, then you will probably get mad at the Russians. But if you’re less selective you might hear this guy from Soledar in Donetsk say that “they need to withdraw the troops from residential areas as otherwise the Russians will hit civilians”, and you might come to realize that there is more to the story than what news programs are trying to convey.

Essentially, getting emotional in situations of this type isn’t a good idea as emotions can impair your ability to think straight and makes you more susceptible to being influenced and manipulated by propaganda.

This is why Plato rightly says that emotions should be controlled by reason and reason should be guided by justice. A cool head seems to be essential in good philosophy as much as in rational thinking generally.

So, I think you guys should try to familiarize yourselves with the historical and geopolitical background of the conflict and with what Russia actually wants, instead of speculating, fantasizing, or pointlessly “philosophizing” about it.

At the very least, you could do yourselves (and the forum) a favor and quit uncritically swallowing Zelensky’s and NATO’s propaganda and lies.

Anyway, here’s some food for thought from proper experts who IMO have a much better understanding of the situation than any (or most) of you:

What The West (Still) Gets Wrong About Putin – Foreign Policy

If you think about it, Russia has absolutely no means of taking over Europe and it definitely isn’t about to invade New York, London, or Paris.

The truth of the matter is that while Europeans are hiding under the bed for fear of Russia, it’s America that is taking over Europe by stealth:

Revealed: the quiet US takeover of Britain's arms industry – The Telegraph

And it isn't just Britain. The problem is, the American public are ignorant of what’s really happening in Europe and Europeans are in denial about the American government’s intentions - or the intentions of the defense corporations that are currently flooding Europe with overpriced US tanks, howitzers, and rocket systems. Germany alone is spending EUR100 billion on defense this year, much of it on US-made stuff like F-35A fighter jets (USD78 million apiece).

And, of course, a lot of the weaponry being dumped by the West on Ukraine, will end up in the hands of criminal gangs and smugglers and make its way to Western Europe.

A large number of weapons sent to Ukraine will eventually fall into the hands of criminals in Europe and beyond, the director general of Interpol said on Wednesday (June 1st), urging states to take an interest in tracing these weapons.
“The wide availability of weapons during the current conflict will lead to the proliferation of illicit weapons in the post-conflict phase," German Jürgen Stock told the Anglo-American Press Association in Paris, where he had visited from Lyon, Interpol's headquarters. "Criminals are already focusing on this right now," he continued, seeing in the European Union "a likely destination for these weapons, because the prices of these firearms on the black market are significantly higher in Europe, especially in the Scandinavian countries."

Guerre en Ukraine : Interpol craint un afflux d'armes illicites après le conflit – Le Figaro

Meantime, Biden is sending Latin American immigrants to Spain like England used to ship blacks to its colonies. Yet some still insist that America isn’t treating Europe as its colonial possession ….

Putin's high- school teacher couldn't remember Vlad, he was such a colorless and unexceptional pupil. — Wayfarer

Yep. And because he was a "colorless and unexceptional pupil" it logically follows that he is "animated by a malevolent spirit".

And, of course, malevolent spirits only lurk around in Russia. Never in Western Europe, China, Africa, America, or the Middle East. And Australian Aboriginals gave their country to the Brits of their own accord ....

Well done, mate! :smile:

Individual Ukrainians may or may not act in self-defense to some extent. But if their ultimate goal (individually or collectively) is to take what rightfully belongs to Russia, e.g. Crimea, then their "self-defense" is necessarily qualified by their intention to take something that doesn't belong to them. So, it very much does matter.

In terms of the NATO-Russia conflict, given that NATO, not Russia, keeps expanding, it is Russia that is acting in self-defense, not NATO.

And, as US foreign-policy makers like defense secretary Robert Gates have admitted to having played a hand in causing the conflict, I think it is right for America and its NATO Empire to assume responsibility for their actions .

Ukrainians and their allies are worthy of praise, since Ukraine is acting in self defense. — Olivier5

Nah. As usual, it looks like you didn't think that one through, in addition to not paying attention! :grin:

1. Note that I said "purely in self-defense". If other motives are involved, then it isn't unqualified self-defense.

2. You haven't established that it is unqualified self-defense.

3. Russia can also argue that it is acting in self-defense. An invasion can perfectly well be part of a defensive war. And as they say, offense is the best defense.

4. The West has always aimed to destroy Russia, going back to the Franco-Russian, Napoleonic, and Crimean wars of the 1700’s and 1800’s.

After the Russian revolution of 1917 there were Western plans to dismantle the Russian Empire and divide it between England, France, and other Western powers:

The zones of influence assigned to each government shall be as follows: The English zone: The Cossack territories, the territory of the Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, Kurdistan. The French zone: Bessarabia, the Ukraine, the Crimea … ‘

W. Churchill, The World Crisis: The Aftermath, p. 166

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, indeed, even before it had dissolved, there were calls in the Bush administration for Russia to be dismantled:

When the Soviet Union was collapsing in late 1991, Dick [Cheney] wanted to see the dismantlement not only of the Soviet Union and the Russian empire but of Russia itself, so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world

Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, p. 97

In addition, there were a string of “color revolutions” aiming to topple governments in the region that Russia believed to have been instigated by anti-Russian Western powers: Yugoslavia (2000), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), Kyrgyzstan (2005), and especially, Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution of 2014.

So, when Putin in his 2014 annual speech said that the West wanted to see Russia “collapsed and dismembered like Yugoslavia”, I think it’s fair to say that he did have a point.

In March 2022 he said:

The collective west wants to divide our society... to provoke civil confrontation in Russia and to use its fifth column to strive to achieve its aim. And there is one aim - the destruction of Russia

Again, given that Western-backed opposition groups with links to the “color revolutions” elsewhere were also active in Russia, he wasn’t far of the mark:

- The opposition group Open Russia was founded by Russia’s richest oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky in 2001 and later run from London.

- The Anti-Corruption Foundation was founded in 2011 by operatives of telecom firm VimpelCom (co-founded by the American Augie K. Fabela II) and associated industry and finance consortium Alfa Group (controlled by the Gibraltar-based CTF Holdings), whose boss Michael Fridman is Russian representative on the US Council on Foreign Relations.

- Alfa Group bosses were also involved in founding the opposition party People’s Alliance, etc., etc.

In any case, the contribution of US foreign policy to the conflict with Russia has been acknowledged by the policy makers themselves:

(p. 157) Moving so quickly after the collapse of the Soviet Union to incorporate so many of its formerly subjugated states into NATO was a mistake. Trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching. The roots of the Russian Empire trace back to Kiev in the ninth century, so that was an especially monumental provocation. So NATO expansion was a political act, not a carefully considered military commitment, thus undermining (p. 158) the purpose of the alliance and recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests. During the Cold War, to avoid military conflict between us, we had to take Soviet interests into account. When Russia was weak in the 1900s and beyond, we did not take Russian interests seriously. We did a poor job of seeing the world from their point of view, and of managing the relationship for the long term. All that said, I was now President Bush’s secretary of defense, and I dutifully supported the effort to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. (p. 159) I made a difficult situation with Russia worse by signing off – the day after I was sworn in as secretary in December 2006 – on a recommendation to the president that the United States locate ten long-range missile defense interceptors in Poland and an associated radar installation in the Czech Republic. The Russians saw the proposed deployments as putting their nuclear deterrent at risk and as a further step in the “encirclement” of their country ….

Robert M. Gates, Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War

It follows that the West must acknowledge its share of responsibility for the conflict and work toward ending the conflict as soon as possible and in a way that takes Russia’s interests and concerns into consideration. In fact, IMO, it has a moral obligation to do so.

He was not, from what I can tell. But maybe he will clarify what he was trying to say. — Olivier5

What's there to "clarify"???

If you unlawfully (or unjustly) kill someone, you'll rightly get jailed for murder. If you do it purely in self-defense, or in defense of others, you'll get acquitted or (depending on the circumstances) even praised for doing it. So, intention and motive are absolutely crucial in determining legitimacy.

This is why it is imperative to investigate NATO's intentions and motives instead of uncritically blaming it all on Russia.

This is ridiculous Apollodorus. There is a big difference between an organization like NATO expanding because other countries are willfully joining, and a country expanding through forceful invasion of another. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, I disagree. Something isn't "ridiculous" just because you say so.

Expansion doesn't happen for no reason. There is an intention and motive behind it.

Therefore, the legitimacy of the intention/motive needs to be examined first.

The method and manner by which the expansion is conducted is a separate issue and comes second.

Sweden and Finland are heading for NATO membership as a result of the invasion. — jorndoe

Sorry, but this isn't about Sweden and Finland. The question is whether and to what extent NATO has been a cause to the conflict.

What does that mean in practice, though? — Olivier5

If NATO has a “right of expansion”, so does Russia. If NATO can say that it feels “threatened” by Russia, Russia also can say that it feels threatened by NATO.

It’s exactly the same logic. And since both sides can’t expand indefinitely, expansion must lead to conflict. Therefore, we need to see who is causing the conflict, for example, by expanding in the direction of the other.

NATO was created to keep Russia out of Western Europe. But after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, its new objective was to keep Russia not only out of Western Europe but also out of Eastern Europe.
While NATO has been massively expanding (from 12 to 30 countries!) Russia has not.

Moreover, it isn’t an existential issue for NATO to stop expanding in the direction of Russia, but it is an existential issue for Russia if NATO keeps expanding until Russia ceases to exist.

So, I think it is a fallacy to look at it from the perspective of international law, (a) because international law was created to defend the interests of the British Empire and its American successor, and (b) because international law isn’t applied equally in all cases (see Germany, Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc.).

It makes more sense to look at it from the perspective of justice. As I said before, justice is a fundamental element of Classical and Christian philosophy.

Essentially, justice demands that one doesn’t take more than what is proper so as to upset equality, harmony, or peace in relation to one’s neighbors.

According to Aristotle,

Justice is that state in virtue of which a just man is said to be capable of doing just acts from choice, and of assigning property – both to himself in relation to another, and to another in relation to a third party – not in such a way as to give more of the desirable thing to himself and less to his neighbor, but assigning to each that which is proportionately equal (Nicomachean Ethics 1134a).

NATO claims that it has a “right of infinite expansion”. But the rights of the individual (or group of individuals) are not unlimited. They are restricted by the rights of others. And what applies to relations between citizens also applies to international relations. It is a clear violation of the principle of justice for a party to take more than what is proper or to disproportionately restrict the rights of others.

NATO expansion and Ukrainian claims to Crimea are obvious violations of justice as they ignore the rights of countries like Russia.

In principle, there is nothing wrong with Ukraine being independent and joining NATO. But if Ukrainian independence means that Russia loses its naval ports and bases in Crimea, and Ukrainian membership of NATO means that the Black Sea is taken over by NATO or America, then this creates problems for
Russia to which it has a right to react in ways that it thinks are necessary to defend its national interests.

Independence was Ukraine’s decision and action, not Russia’s. Therefore, the onus was on Ukraine to insure that its action didn’t infringe the rights of Russia.

Otherwise, what we’re saying is that Russia can’t have security concerns, can’t feel threatened by NATO, and generally can’t do anything and should allow itself to be acted on like a piece of driftwood swept away by America’s ever-expanding NATO sea.

In other words, Russia has no right to exist except as a colony of America and its EU-NATO Empire. IMO this comes very close to what Hitler planned for Russia.

In terms of NATO bearing responsibility, it should (1) accept responsibility and (b) work toward an end to the conflict that takes into consideration Russia’s security concerns.

Unfortunately, NATO was created to protect US interests and as things currently stand it's hard to imagine Europeans breaking free from US domination any time soon ....

What do you call Russia's activities then? — jorndoe

NATO claims that it’s got a “right of expansion”, allegedly, as a “defensive” measure in response to "Russian aggression". But if NATO has that right, so does Russia.

In other words, if NATO expands for fear of Russia, Russia invades Ukraine for fear of NATO.

And considering that since the dissolution of the Soviet Union it has been NATO, not Russia, that has been expanding and planning to expand, Russia arguably has a right to invade Ukraine as a defensive measure.

There are several theories why it took Russia so long to invade Ukraine, that involve a number of factors. One of them is that as America refused to even consider Russia’s requests, Russia was hoping that European governments – especially those whose economies depended on Russian oil and gas – might put pressure on America to do something about Russia’s requests.

Unfortunately, Europe decided to do as told by America (and its British poodle), and at that point the invasion became inevitable. The fact that Russia invaded Ukraine doesn’t mean that it would have invaded no matter what. It might have decided not to invade, had its (I think legitimate) demands been met.

At any rate, IMO, NATO must bear some responsibility for the invasion.

Moscow: We're not gonna invade Ukraine

Washington: Russia's definitely about to invade Ukraine — ssu

As usual, you aren’t just ignoring the actual sequence of events, but you don’t seem to think your statements through. :grin:

I think it makes perfect sense for Russia to have said that it had “no aggressive plans about Ukraine”, given that the problem was not Ukraine but 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 a distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO".

At the same time, NATO members were arming and training Ukrainian forces. Theoretically, this could have been for "defensive" purposes. But "defense" could have implied taking Crimea and the Donbas region.

Certainly, Ukrainian membership of NATO would have meant (1) Ukraine trying to take Crimea and the Donbas with NATO assistance, and (2) NATO threatening Russia’s southwestern flank.

NATO occupation of Crimea would have been particularly unacceptable to Russia as it would have resulted in Russia losing its Crimean naval bases that it has used since 1783, and in the Black Sea (which Russia needs for transit to the Mediterranean) being turned into a NATO- i.e., US-controlled, lake.

On December 23, 2021, Putin said:

We have made it clear that any further movement of NATO to the East is unacceptable. Is there anything unclear about this? Are we deploying missiles near the U.S. border? No, we are not. It is the United States that has come to our home with its missiles and is already standing at our doorstep. Is it going too far to demand that no strike systems be placed near our home? What is so unusual about this?

The fact that Russia massed its forces on the Ukrainian border didn’t necessarily mean it was going to invade no matter what. It could have meant that it was going to invade IF its security concerns were ignored.

On the other hand, why was America so damn sure that Russia was going to invade? Because it knew that it wasn’t going to meet Russia’s requests or even consider them, dismissing them as a “non-starter”:

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, however, made it clear that Russia's proposals are not on the table. Russian demands that Ukraine be barred from NATO membership and that the alliance cut back its deployments in Eastern Europe are "non-starters for the United States"

Russian demands are 'non-starters,' says U.S. diplomat – The Week

And the reason why America refused to even consider Russia’s requests is that it sees Russia as a threat to US hegemony. As former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski put it:

Potentially, the most dangerous scenario [for U.S. domination] would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by complementary grievances.

- The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives

Clearly, America sees Russia as an obstacle to its “God-given primacy and hegemony”, that needs to be eliminated. This is reflected in NATO’s expressly stated aim to “keep America in Europe and Russia out”.

IMO it follows that Ukraine is just a victim of America’s aim to achieve unchallenged global supremacy and, in particular, control over Europe.

Not only China. India and other large economies are watching what's happening to Russia. They're learning from Russia's experience and making sure they don't find themselves in the same position of vulnerability to the West in the future.

So, America's position may not end up being quite as strong as officially presumed, in the long-term.

But the biggest loser will be Europe, Germany in particular, which is Europe's largest economy. I for one don’t see how Europeans can benefit from becoming dependent on oil and gas from places that may be more expensive, less stable, and are run by nasty regimes, like Saudi Arabia.

they do a fair amount of manufacturing. — Tate

Of course they do:

Russian manufacturing activity expanded in May after three months of contraction and price pressures eased notably. The S&P Global Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) rose to 50.8 from 48.2 in the previous month, climbing above the 50.0 mark that separates expansion from contraction for the first time since January.

Russian manufacturing activity returns to growth in May - PMI | Reuters

It's a good idea to check the facts before trusting the "experts" here. :smile:

Incidentally, chances are Russia will continue to find buyers for some of its energy exports and if it is forced to start manufacturing products for its own domestic needs, it can easily become largely self-sufficient (which is actually a good thing for its economy) and outlive the sanctions by many years.

The decisive factor in the conflict isn't the sanctions but how the military situation develops.

Okay, but I'm saying NATO biiiiig caca. — Olivier5

That's why the world needs to make sure NATO doesn't get any bigger. :grin:

… the preference for a narcissistic one-way relationship where one party gets to define all the terms of engagement, and the other party is supposed to comply. The other party has no say. — baker

I think that pretty much describes the situation. What is lacking from America’s NWO, which isn’t surprising given that America inherited it from the British Empire, is the concept of justice.

The way I see it, justice a.k.a. righteousness is the most important of cardinal virtues and the very foundation on which classical philosophy was built.

The importance of justice was also recognized by Christian philosophy, even though not always correctly implemented. Unfortunately, the pseudo-philosophies that have become dominant in later times (e.g.,
Imperialism, Transatlanticism, Natoism, Globalism, etc.) have tended to neglect this central concept of Western thought, and I think this has contributed to many of the problems the world is struggling, and likely to continue to struggle with, for the foreseeable future.

Though some like to babble about the “Russian Empire”, the generally accepted fact is that the dominant power in the world today is America, not Russia, and that America is a society in which material profit plays a central role.

This is reflected in the many international organizations that America has established as instruments of its foreign policy, such the UN, NATO, and the EU, all of which were created for the purpose of maintaining not justice, but “international peace and security” conducive to America “doing business” unhindered.

In spite of “peace” being the purported aim of America’s world order, it goes without saying that peace without justice isn’t true peace. Certainly, a world order that allows some states (China, Turkey) to grab other nations’ territory while some nations (Kurds) aren’t even allowed to have a state of their own, isn’t a just order. And, as they say, “no justice, no peace”.

IMO it isn’t enough to acknowledge the hypocrisy of America and its world order, we need to indict and combat its blatant injustice. Focusing exclusively on Russia’s alleged “crimes” amounts to deliberately ignoring the bigger crimes committed by America and its allies or client-states.

From what I see, older generations who still think that Russia is the Soviet Union and Germany the Third Reich, and who seem to be over-represented here, tend to have an outdated mindset that simply ignores some very important changes taking place in the world. If we look at China, India, Latin America, Africa, there is a growing tendency while embracing modern technology and science, to pay more attention to local history and culture and incorporate them into one’s national identity.

India, for example, has taken huge steps toward shaking off the shackles of colonialism, both European and Muslim (Arab and Mughal), and this seems to have contributed to a cultural and religious revival that acts as a counterweight to American hegemony.

If Europeans want to survive into the next decades and centuries, they too will have to liberate themselves from American colonialism and re-join the international community as a continent of free nations.

As I said, the real solution is to have free and independent countries and continents. America wants to “keep Russia out of Europe”. But this is absurd as Russia is, and has always been, in Europe. I’m all for keeping Russia out of Western Europe, but then America should stay out of Europe, too.

The problem is that America is increasingly treating Europe as its colonial possession. It is exporting to Europe not only American pseudo-culture mainly consisting of guns, drugs, and psycho music genres, but Biden now plans to ship Latin American immigrants to Europe exactly like England used to ship Africans to its colonies!

As hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive at the southern border each month, the Biden administration is looking to Spain to take in more Central Americans – New York Post

On the whole, America seems to be monopolizing the very definition of culture, democracy, politics, international relations, and by the looks of it, even philosophy. In a world that is increasingly fake – from fake news to fake Instagram pictures - fake Europeans fail to see any problem with American hegemony and so do their American counterparts and role models. And this is why no meaningful dialogue or discussion is possible ….

It wasn't an international border. Once states break away and get their independence, it's different. — ssu

A border doesn't need to be "international" to be a border. And the consequences of changing an original border must be taken into account, otherwise it can lead to conflicts like the one we now see in Ukraine!

The fact remains that borders either change or they don’t. History shows that they do.

Therefore, my position is that borders can and should be changed as and when demanded by Justice and according to the principle that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners.

In contrast, if you are “against changing present borders” as you claim, then,

1. You should be AGAINST:

Russian-held Crimea being given to Ukraine.

Turkey changing Syria’s borders.

NATO expanding its borders, etc.

And

2. You should be FOR:

China keeping Tibet.

Turkey keeping Cyprus.

The Kurds never having their own state, etc.

Moreover, given that a lot of borders have been drawn as a result of invasion and occupation, by being against changing borders you are against unjust invasion and occupation being redressed, i.e., you're against Justice.

Ergo, your stance is too inconsistent and self-contradictory to add up.

One need not have to be put in the default position of *having* to say, "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime.", every time one want to make a point about how poorly the West in handling this situation. — Manuel

By the same token, one should not be put in the default position of *having* to say "Putin's invasion of Ukraine is a major crime", if it turns out that the invasion was motivated by legitimate security concerns and, therefore, not necessarily a crime, major or otherwise ....

That's what I'm saying. It's NATO's caca.