I had not planned to participate any further in this, but I read something fairly horrifying to which I feel compelled to respond.

Btw as I said to Christoffer, it may be that tomorrow Friday Finland might have some bilateral defense agreement with the US or apply for NATO. Or not. But at least it's a possibility that can happen. Many are speculating about it here. — ssu

I think that this would be a gross mistake in the current climate, and highly irresponsible. Of course, it is the right of sovereign countries to take whatever action are viewed as being beneficial to their populations. At the same time, a wise nation, like a wise man, knows when it is best to assert its rights, and when it is best not to. Perhaps with the types of technical power and weaponry, and the proliferation of those, at mankind's disposal, military treaty organizations and military solutions to political problems are no longer advisable?

Though I can understand what I view as the Russian perspective which led to this invasion, I also recognize that the situation has become so hormonally and emotionally charged that Putin and other Russian leaders have probably entered into a state of irrationality or partial irrationality, as do all men when adrenaline mixed with testosterone takes over. remember that it seems that Russia feels like it is becoming surrounded by a hostile NATO. If Finland or Sweden were to apply for NATO membership at this moment in time, it might provoke an irrational Russia to attack with immediacy. Then, what are the U.S. and other NATO powers to do regarding the Nation with which it has a memorandum of understanding? If Russia is attacked by the U.S., France, or any other Western power, then there is no winning for mankind. The current situation is highly charged, and like a live high-power line, might easily spin out of control. The fact is that an inflamed Russia cannot be defeated in war because of the types and amounts of weapons at its disposal; such a war can but end in the most horrendous of ways, with universal defeat, and you know what I mean. I don't think that anybody wants to see their children and loved ones, along with many others around the world, dying of radiation sickness as a result of an irradiated atmosphere, do we? I certainly don't. As far as we know, this world and its various species of organic life represent the light of the universe, and I personally don't want to see it diminished.

Russia is going to take Ukraine, hopefully without outside interference. This will be the best result at this point, and an eventuality if we are lucky. If we are even luckier, there will be a quick Ukrainian surrender. The best course for everybody at present is to wait until the situation calms down following the capitulation of Ukraine, and then try to open diplomatic relations or dialogue with a becalmed Russia. Then, maybe we can all (an I mean all of us humans in the world) come to some type of agreement upon a way forward in this world which does not include the near extinction of our, and many other, species.

That's all that I have to say, so I don't expect I will be logging on to the site again.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

I accept your characterization of the events in question, save for the fact that when Russia expressed interest in 1954 it was indeed a "superpower" by any definition of that word. What you ignore, however, is the fact that is not accepted by some here: that NATO has always danced to the tune whistled by the U.S., and Russia was not willing to enter the alliance under those circumstances. Russians, thinking theirs a "great country" would require parity with the U.S. if Russia were to become part of NATO, something the U.S. would never allow.

As for NATO developing to represent an "appendage of U.S. hegemony", this was something that Charles de Gaulle expressed concern about before the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949. I am sure that @Olivier5 can verify this with a bit of research. That the U.S. currently enjoys de facto suzerainty within NATO is evidenced by the fact that neither France nor Germany wanted to allow either Georgia or Ukraine to become NATO members for fear of provoking Russia, but George W. Bush (so filled with the American "mythos" that he stank like poopie) wanted it, wanted NATO to grow eastward, and so both countries were promised eventual membership (France and Germany be damned), and the path to membership was initiated. What happened? Georgia was invaded, and now Ukraine is invaded. What else did Bush think was going to happen? Is this not essentially the point that @Isaac was trying to make in his lengthy interlocution with @Christoffer?

There is also an aspect of this situation about which I have not made mention: the cultural aspect to which @schopenhauer1 alluded above:

Russia would have to conform to a bunch of standards it has never really had to try to live up to, as far as democratically... — schopenhauer1

This is a complicated and difficult aspect of the current situation. I am not of a mind to delve too deeply into it, but basically, both NATO and the EU are emanations of "Western Culture" (a "cultural block" of the world), meaning that they are the products of "Enlightenment" thinking. They have as a tacit, unstated purpose to spread the values of the Enlightenment to the entire world. To "make the world safe for democracy", as it were. In my opinion (as I analyze the world), there are other "cultural blocks" which reject the thinking of the Enlightenment to varying degrees, which cultural blocks include: the Fundamentalist Islamic Block, the Liberal Islamic Block, the Hispanic Cultural Block, and that of which Russia is a part, the Oligarchic/Aristocratic Cultural Block. Russia would be willing to join NATO only so long as it didn't have to adopt Enlightenment values (which after all, are not appropriate for all peoples and all cultures around the world, just ask the Taliban) lock, stock, and barrel. As I say, I don't want to get too deeply into this complicated and nuanced aspect of this thing, but there you have a brief statement of it.

As I have said, I did not intend to become a "member" of your online community, but rather to comment on a couple of topics that have been raised here. Accepting things generally as they appear, I am in no way a philosopher, and probably would not have much of value to add in general (probably not smart enough). Therefore, after I sign off now, I will probably not be participating any further, having said what I wanted to say.

My complements on an interesting website and an interesting discussion.

So, how in practice does this work? [...] Many in here talk about this, but I've yet to hear anyone actually explaining this other than "we all know it", which, I'm sorry, doesn't work for me. — Christoffer

What you are requesting cannot be provided because it is hidden in "backrooms" and over secure telephone lines. We are not dealing with rank amateurs here, but rather with professional corrupt politicians. It is, however, obvious from the alignment of NATO policy with U.S. interests. Do we not all know how corrupt American politicians, and indeed politicians in general, are? Why, Joe Biden's drug-addicted son Hunter was given high-level executive positions in Ukrainian companies as a result of his influence peddling! (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden-joe-biden-president-business-dealings) I am sure that because of this, Biden takes Russia's invasion more personally than he would otherwise. It hits his family in the wallet. It is very possible that the only reason the U.S. has not acted against Russia militarily is because of Putin's cogent reminder regarding what type of weapons Russia is in possession of.

...I don't understand how this sentiment thus justifies Putin's actions here. — schopenhauer1

The point is that neither the U.S. nor NATO, which takes dictation from the U.S., can be trusted by Russia (which has always been cited as an "adversary" by the U.S.) to be "bona fide" actors. History has shown us how the U.S. deals with its "adversaries" all over the world. Do you forget that Russia has been twice rebuffed upon expressing a desire to join NATO? (Molotov's proposal that the USSR join NATO in 1954, and Putin's expression of interest in the early years of this millenium). The U.S. did never want another "superpower" within NATO precisely because NATO is an expression and an appendage of U.S. hegemonic policy, and was determined to have no rivals within the "alliance". Calling NATO a "defensive" military alliance verges on the facetious. It is a military alliance headed by a nation which has always called Russia its "adversary". We all know that a military, a "defense system", can be used in offensive ways with the purportion of "defense". With this in mind, can Russia allow itself to be "surrounded" or "invested" by NATO nations?

In support of my view of this, read here:
https://www.wsj.com/podcasts/the-journal/why-nato-is-at-the-center-of-the-russia-ukraine-conflict/e02c8cbc-5357-40c2-a252-ba4d306b0ef1

no, that's not NATO today. — Christoffer

Marvelous, human evolution has accelerated most favorably! We must call in the paleoanthropologists so that we can demand an explanation.

Today... that's the argument. — Christoffer

Aaaah, I see. The U.S. was once a nation which conceived of its (manifest) "destiny" by looking at maps, by the apparent dictates of geography, but today it is not. The U.S. once was a nation which committed cultural and actual genocide against not simply an ethnic group, but an entire family of ethnic groups (the "American Indians") in order to advance its objectives, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation willing to manufacture premises for going to war with other nations (the Spanish-American War, the recent Iraq War), but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which used its "defense" system (is this not what "NATO" is?) in the prosecution of wars in distant countries (Korea, Vietnam) which were not threatening it in any conceivable way, but today it is not. The U.S. was once a nation which continually interfered in and manipulated a host of governments of sovereign countries within its own percieved "sphere of influence" (Latin America) to the point of assassinating heads of state (Allende in Chile), but today it is not.

Thanks for explaining.

I only joined this site to make one post in response to the essential truth of the post on page 26 by @baker, but I find that I cannot let the following bit of nonsense slide:

America would never be the first to use nuclear weapons. — Cuthbert

?!?

Ummm...

www.history.com/news/hiroshima-nagasaki-atomic-bomb-photos-before-after

The examination of premises is essential to making good arguments.

:pray: :100: :up:

I agree with you here, and even more with your comments from a few days ago:

"Ever since I can remember, Slavic people have been put down by the West. In every international setting I have been, there was a palpable contempt for us. Online, as soon as people hear where I'm from, if they are Westerners, then 9 out of 10 times, they automatically adopt a negative, patronizing, bad-faithed attitude toward me. Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation.

This Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people is so consistent and so grave that there is even a trend for Slavic people to despise themselves because of their national roots, to deny them, to reinvent the past (like some who say that we're not really Slavic, but an offshoot from the Italian group), and many adopt a Western identity.

The way many Western people have been talking about Putin is actually "just business as usual". There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture, so normalized that most people don't even see it."

This applies not only within the European context, but among the descendants of Europeans within the U.S., where it is passed from father to son like a cultural legacy. Take it from me, growing up Polish in a largely Italian neighborhood (among tribalistic "white" Americans, you are what your surname is) was difficult in many ways, and the incessant "stupid Polack" and "ugly Polack" jokes (told in jest, but destructive nonetheless) took a cumulative toll on my self concept which I have yet to fully repair. Make no mistake, Western Europeans, as a cultural trait, hold Slavic people in no small amount of contempt (remember all the trash talk about "Polish plumbers" during the Brexit debates?), a contempt of which I have personally been a victim. I feel certain that the enduring spectacle of a strong Slavic nation like Russia continues as an affront to that sensibility, and that this contributes to continued anti-Russian sentiment.

Thank you, @baker, for giving voice to a suppressed truth. Your post which I quoted above effected me greatly.

Ever since I can remember, Slavic people have been put down by the West. In every international setting I have been, there was a palpable contempt for us. Online, as soon as people hear where I'm from, if they are Westerners, then 9 out of 10 times, they automatically adopt a negative, patronizing, bad-faithed attitude toward me. Like I'm automatically a second-class person because I'm from a Slavic nation.

This Western contempt and bad faith toward the Slavic people is so consistent and so grave that there is even a trend for Slavic people to despise themselves because of their national roots, to deny them, to reinvent the past (like some who say that we're not really Slavic, but an offshoot from the Italian group), and many adopt a Western identity.

The way many Western people have been talking about Putin is actually "just business as usual". There is an anti-Slavic nationalism that has become so deeply ingrained in Western culture, so normalized that most people don't even see it. — baker

:100:^3% (=1M%, for all you humanities majors)

This is as true as true can be, and it does not only occur in Europe but also in the U.S. among the descendants of European immigrants. Tribalism among American whites has diminished, but when I was growing up, was yet a part of the mindset of those who descended from European immigrants in the mid 1800's through early 1900's. Of course, Germans, Irish and Italians were the largest of those groups, and slavic peoples less so. You can take it from me, that a young Polish boy growing up in anything but a Polish neighborhood "caught hell" on a daily basis, being continually assaulted with "dumb polack" and "ugly polack" jokes (it doesn't help that Polish surnames tend to be long, consonant-heavy, and sometimes incomprehensible). It had its cumulative effect on me, I can tell you. Of course, the English (the "WASPs") were untouchable. There weren't even any pejorative terms for them. There is definitely an ingrained belief among European peoples that slavs are "lesser". I feel certain that western Europeans hate the idea of a strong slavic country, as Russia potentially represents, since it challenges their ingrained bias.

Thank you, @baker. This post almost made me cry.