I fully accept, for example, that gays have had a tough path historically in the US, but I don't think part of that struggle was in exclusion from universities, real estate markets, or employment. So why am I being asked to be on the lookout for them to be sure they get hired? — Hanover

Have you really? Someone has asked that from you in your work?

Or have you read an article that basically urges people to do this?

Your opinion of that northern neighbor does not matter. — Tzeentch

Neither does your opinion that Russia attacked Ukraine only because of NATO enlargement as a defensive manner. Seemingly not taking into account other issues like the fact that Russia see's Crimea and Novorossiya as part of Russia. Culturally, ethnically and historically.

Well, My opinion about my eastern neighbor does matter. And so does the opinion majority of my people. In fact so much, that for Putin our NATO membership is now a non-issue.

Appease dictators and totalitarian regime as much you want. If might makes right, then you really have to have that deterrence. Si vis pacem, parabellum. I say.

Do you believe Russian actions in Crimea and Ukraine were acts of "unprovoked agression"? — Tzeentch

Oh yes, what would be the provocation that Ukraine did? Pre-emptive attack? Threatening with an attack? No?

That for an independent country to seek safety by trying to join an international defense treaty, because it (obviously for a reason) felt threatened by it's neighbor?

What a horrible provocation!!!

And since we seem to be just fixated on just ONE issue about the war and repeat it again and again... so I'll just skip to my next answer: If Mexico would want that military alliance with China, wouldn't it then have to feel threatened by it's northern neighbor in order to try such a desperate Hail Mary pass?

all of this context matters, and that NATO / EU's role in this cannot be ignored — Tzeentch

It matters (and, sure, there is a measure of blame to be tossed around), just not as much as Putin's ambitions and his imperialist compadres. Hasn't this been re-repeated often enough in the thread? — jorndoe

Seems not be so. :roll:

Your position hinges almost entirely on the idea that the Russians act out of territorial greed (the "madman Putin" argument), and not on the protection of key strategic interests. — Tzeentch

Be it "protection of key strategic interests", "joining Crimea back to after an illegal act by the Soviet leadership" or whatever else, territory has been annexed and a full scale war is ongoing.

If you annex part of countries, I think that quite clearly shows you have (or had) territorial ambitions. That the Russians are even changing school curriculum at the occupied territorial doesn't seem like the annexations will stop (or the creation on new buffer states will end here).

Race based decision making policies are pervasive in the US. — Hanover

What else would you have when you try to correct the errors of the past, segregation and racist legislation, with still holding on to the core idea of dividing people into categories of race?

Most so-called democracies are aristocracies in disguise, and rejecting the principle of noblesse oblige does not constitute a glorious revolution. Let's pretend that there is some principle or virtue at stake though, rather than power politics overriding the justice system in a race for complete moral nihilism masquerading as righteous religion. — unenlightened

Even if we don't have a rigid caste system or an entrenched class system, modern societies tend to be meritocracies at best. A meritocracy doesn't end classes. Add then the capitalist system on top and there are always those who are better off and those who aren't.

Social mobility, transfer payments, welfare state and above all, social cohesion, all can minimize the problems, but they surely won't erase them.

When you say "territorial ambitions" I take it to mean as much as territorial ambitions brought about by imperialism or some such. — Tzeentch

It seems you have very confusing ideas about just what contributes territorial ambitions and what don't.

but this hardly constitutes proof of territorial ambitions. — Tzeentch

The vice president of Russia saying in the 1990's that Crimea is part of Russia?

The Duma deciding that the joining of Crimea to Ukraine in the 1950's was an illegal act?

If those aren't proofs of territorial ambitions on the highest level, I don't know what is.

I just have to simply disagree with you on this one.

If you read the articles you'll see that it's exactly the same concerns that lead to tensions then as today - Russian access to the Black Sea. — Tzeentch

Access which Russia actually has even without Crimea. (Remember where Sochi and overall Krasnodar Krai are).



Hence your argument would make more sense if it would be to have control about the Sebastapol naval base. Which btw was leased until 2042, so good time to build perhaps a new base on Krasnodar Krai.

(21st Apr 2010, the Guardia) Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, today agreed to extend the lease on Russia's naval base in the Crimea, in the most explicit sign yet of his new administration's tilt towards Moscow.

Yanukovych said the lease on Russia's Black Sea fleet that was due to expire in 2017 will be prolonged for 25 years, until 2042 at least.

Here's my theory.

What is happening to the Republican party is what happened to the NRA.

Now the NRA was formed by Civil War veterans in 1971 and for a long time, for a hundred years, it seemed as an ordinary gun association, that for example favored limitations like a machine gun ban in 1934 etc. What then happened? Robert Spitzer explains in on article:

By the mid-1970s, a dissident group within the NRA believed that the organization was losing the national debate over guns by being too defensive and not political enough. The dispute erupted at the NRA’s 1977 annual convention, where the dissidents deposed the old guard.

From this point forward, the NRA became ever more political and strident in its defense of so-called “gun rights,” which it increasingly defined as nearly absolute under the Second Amendment.

One sign of how much the NRA had changed: The Second Amendment right to bear arms never came up in the 166 pages of congressional testimony regarding the 1934 gun law. Today, the organization treats those words as its mantra, constantly citing them.

And until the mid-1970s, the NRA supported waiting periods for handgun purchases. Since then, however, it has opposed them. It fought vehemently against the ultimately successful enactment of a five-business-day waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases in 1993.

What Spitzer doesn't go further into and what's crucial to understand is just why a dissident group did take the NRA over and why they thought the NRA was a losing battle, why the "old" NRA wasn't political enough.

I believe idea is simple: one doesn't believe that both sides can reach a consensus on gun rights / gun safety. From the NRA's viewpoint, the other side will go for total ban on all firearms, never will stop their salami tactic and will constantly continue this when there is a shooting incident. Hence it's logical, the new NRA presumed, to fight all the way, any concessions however sound these might seem, will be a defeat because the other side will never stop until all firearms are banned from the people. If you tell yourself this over and over, you'll start to believe it, and it will justify even the most outrageous things.

And this tactic from the NRA has been successful. Yet it has come with the cost of polarization of the gun debate. Or basically has meant the death of the debate. This view holds on to the idea that no consensus can be reached. It fails to realize that in a country where guns have such a prominent place historically and prominence that ownership is mentioned in the Constitution, banning all firearms simply will not happen. And if that doesn't happen, then there obviously would be a consensus to be found. But naturally there is absolutely no desire to look for this, once you have the model of "fight after every inch". Hence there simply cannot be a real consensus seeking gun debate.

This is now happening in politics too, which has been long in the making, but by the Trump win in 2016 and his loss in 2020 it came all very clear. You see, Trump never thought that he could get votes from the other side (clearly shown with his comment about shooting people in New York). Trump never did change and tone down his rhetoric when he got to be the Republican nominee in order to seek votes from democrat leaning voters. Likely this wasn't a shrewd thought, because Trump just cannot be anything else but Trump. If his supporters think that torture works, then he is for torture. It's just a sales pitch. He just doubles down as populists do and wants the outrage from his opponents. This causes that there is a racist undertone in Trump's thinking: that Republicans are basically white and blacks and minorities basically vote democrats and when "white America" loses it's majority position, it's all over. What happened to the NRA has now happened to the GOP.

And hence you don't seek those possible votes from the disappointed and frustrated Democrats, but you double down on your base. You remain as extreme as you can be and portray everything Democrats push as socialism, even if the party is only partially leftist and basically centrist. And when you do this, you can accuse of every older Republican of being a RINOs, Republicans in name only. And it works!

But this puts you on the road where democracy is really in peril. If a consensus cannot be found in a democracy, then that democracy doesn't work. And if you think that your destined to lose in democratic elections, then hell with the democratic part!

If you want to argue that Russia has had these territorial ambitions before 2008 then you'll have to provide some proof. — Tzeentch

Well, I have referred to post-Soviet era history, now many times. But of course, as this is a very active thread it might not get noticed. But basically the row especially about Crimea started basically immediately as the Soviet Union collapse. There's a lot of proof

(May 22nd 1992, LA Times) Running the risk of provoking Ukraine to new heights of fury, Russia’s Parliament on Thursday ruled invalid the 1954 transfer of the balmy Crimean Peninsula to Ukraine.

In a move sure to bring relations between the two superpowers of the Commonwealth of Independent States even closer to the boiling point, the Russian Parliament declared that Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev’s “gift” of the Crimea to Ukraine 38 years ago “lacked legal force.” It called for negotiations on the future of the choice hunk of land.

(see Giving Crimea to Ukraine Was Illegal, Russians Rule : Commonwealth: Parliament’s vote brings tensions between the two powers close to the boiling point.)

(May 25th 1992, Macleans) Russian Vice-President Alexander Rutskoi was on a visit to Sevastopol, where he put the matter more bluntly. “Common sense,” declared Rutskoi, “says that Crimea should be a part of Russia.”

(see A CRIMEAN CRISIS THE BLACK SEA PENINSULA IS THE LATEST FLASH POINT IN THE FORMER SOVIET UNION)

And way more history would show this case... but I guess that should do it. It's not just Putin who came up with the idea that Crimea (and Novorossiya) are basically part of Russia. Some would put it into the "Make Russia great again!" agenda.

You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. — Tzeentch

No.

I've said all along that NATO enlargement has been one reason.

But just why is it so utterly difficult for you to admit that Russia has all along had territorial objectives for it's war in Ukraine (starting with Crimea)?

It's not a wrong perspective, it's a genuine reason for the war also.

If the United States wanted peace with Russia they could have it tomorrow. If they guarantee Ukraine will remain a neutral state and will not join NATO or the EU this war would be over. — Tzeentch

Don't forget Crimea and the Donbas, those people's Republics Russia vowed to defend when it started this war (and perhaps all Novorossiya?) :roll:



Perhaps after that the neutral Ukraine (what's left of it) would be OK for Russia.

A disguised moral argument is still a moral argument, and using 'realpolitik' to justify your moral argument is not actual realism. — Tzeentch

Really?

Opting to be neutral than be part of Warsaw pact and then opting joining NATO after a full out invasion of Ukraine, when the every country that Russia neighbors in the West has either Russian soldiers or is in NATO, doesn't sound to me as a moral judgement, but realpolitik.

Your stance seems to boil down to: Ukraine is justified in wanting to join the EU / NATO, because it prefers the EU / NATO and you present an argument as to why that is the case. — Tzeentch

Either in NATO or with it's own nuclear deterrence, Ukraine would have prevented an all out attack from Russia.

Has worked with the Baltics: no frozen conflict in those countries, no Russian peacekeepers, no moving borders.

With us in NATO, the risk is higher for Russia to do a military intervention or to pressure us militarily.

Revenge? — jorndoe

Likely. I think the tactic here is to keep Ukrainians on the edge and remind that there's a war going on and it's everywhere.

You see, if the Russians would concentrate everything on the Donbas and no action were taken anywhere else in Ukraine, Ukrainians would feel it's just like 2014-2022, which they lived quite normally. So in order for the Ukrainians not to start enjoying the summer and going out freely to the cafe and basically just go on with their lives, a "random" missile attack every once a while to Kyiv or Odessa puts the fear back to peoples minds.

That's the thinking, but of course it is a flawed idea and just hardens the resolve of the Ukrainians. As usually targeting civilians does.

You are making a moral argument, that the United States is better than Russia, and therefore should have the privilege to pursue its foreign policies whereas Russia does not. — Tzeentch

Am I not. Where have I said that how the US has dealt with let's say Guatemala, it has been privileged to do that?

I have continuously said that countries treat other countries very differently. So if when it comes to Sweden, the US is Mr. Nice Guy as when it comes to Central America, the US hasn't been similar as it has been to Nordic countries in general. Russia is quite friendly now with China, even if they have had a border war in their history post-WW2 and Chinese views many parts of Russia's Far East as conquered territory from it. That's the realpolitik you are after.

Yet NATO is an European defense organization. As much as Finland earlier hoped that EU would have a military capability of it's own, it's now NATO.

Your preference for the United States is clear. — Tzeentch

My preference for NATO is clear. For example having an alliance with Sweden simply doesn't cut it. Besides, as NATO countries have not participated all US escapades slavishly, it is an organization made of sovereign states, even if the US has a huge role. Just look how much a hassle Turkey did in the last NATO meeting.

But suppose we say it's better to be under the US sphere of influence than it is to be under the Russian sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

And if you really think this is just a moral judgement, I disagree.

If the US uses "Finlandization" for countries to uphold those values the country (USA) was built on, I have no objections to that. We like democracy, the rule of law and things what the US Constitution talks about very much too. We are also a capitalist country. Hence that doesn't threaten us or our way of life. The Soviet Union had an different agenda. If the US becomes a dictatorship and throws away it's constitution and starts spreading it's totalitarianism to it's allies, perhaps then is time for us to resign from NATO (if the US doesn't resign itself from the organization with so annoying members).

In the end it really comes down to if the Great power is a bully, smaller countries will see it as a threat. If the Great Power is smart enough to behave cordially with smaller countries, there's not much fear or hate towards it.

The thread having established that everyone is evil, maybe we should include some positive things as well?

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin instructed the Finance Ministry to initiate an agreement on providing financial assistance to Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
— Russian government will conclude an agreement on financial aid with Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Mar 2, 2009)
Abkhazia to receive 2.36 billion rubles ($68 million) from the Russian federal budget and South Ossetia 2.8 billion rubles ($81 million)
[...]
South Ossetia would also receive 8.5 billion rubles ($246 million) to rebuild
— Russia signs financial aid deals with Abkhazia, South Ossetia-2 (Mar 17, 2009) — jorndoe

Protecting and helping all those Russians in other countries is a burden, but a burden which Putin's gallantly takes on, right?

I think that Hitler also gave some money to the Sudetenland Germans also...

Türkiye is not in the United States' sphere of influence. — Tzeentch

Umm...but isn't in a NATO country?

I think the Europeans mainly like not having to spend much on defense. — Tzeentch

Yes. That's a really good point, Tzeentch. By working for other countries even a bit, guess what, those countries do value the effort!

But if you basically are just the colonizer, in some way or another, that does not bring anything to others, of course the people will hate you.

But I suppose your point is that US - European relations have been more cooperative, and thus better. That's a moral judgement, and realists don't deal in moral judgements. — Tzeentch

Yeah.

Cooperation is better.

And just why do you think it's a moral judgemenent? I think it's quite rational judgement, not moral. Which ally would you want? The "ally" that steals, dominates and screws you, or the one that can listen to you and cooperate, even does something for you? Something like when the opposing Great Power blockades a large city of yours that is separated from you, your ally creates an airlift to feed your city.



Those kind of actions are noted. Thus it's a rational choice, not a moral one. And that rationality brings it down to the realpolitik approach.

The fact is, Sweden and Finland joining NATO was a rational choice, not a moral one. Especially for the Swedes and their 200 year neutrality, it really came down to a rational choice. For Finland it was far more obvious, because we Finns know we are an expendable.

After all, Nazi Germany partly saved us (Finland) in the summer of '44 from the Russian offensive with arms shipments and military assistance. And how did we Finns repay that assistance? By enacting a separate peace with Russia and then attacking our former ally, our Waffenbrüder in Northern Finland. For Finns it's hasn't been about a moral right or wrong, even if we believe in democracy. It has been all the time about simply survival. Hence in WW2 there was no "liberation date" for us: we weren't liberated from ourselves.

Hence only a minority of Finns thought before February 24th that joining NATO would be a good thing, because the simple fact was that many Finns didn't believe that NATO was a genuine European defense organization, but a puppet of the US and really hoped to have good relations with Russia, just as we have with the Swedes. But then February 24th happened, which basically gave the flashback of 1939 for the entire nation: our Eastern neighbor was back into it's old ways of behaving.

****

It turns out that Finnish people are not quite the irredeemable cowards and supporters of Kurdish genocide that their government is:

"According to a recent survey in Finland, only 14 percent of the Finns agree that legislative changes ought to be made in order to get Turkey’s support for accession to the NATO alliance. 70 percent of respondents said that they do not support making concessions to Turkey.

The results of the survey, conducted by Helsingin Sanomat, have been released on Monday, one day before the leaders of Finland and Sweden are set to meet with Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to convince him to drop his objections to their membership of NATO." — Streetlight

Actually the government is fully aware what the people think. Hope the media follows just what happens later. I think they will do that.

But as for the surveys: You know Streetlight, there are many Finns that think just like you. And if I would start a conversation with them about politics, you bet they would disagree with me. Yet I know that when the shit really hits the fan, I can trust them. They never will be my enemy. That's why I really believe in democracy. That's the wonderful thing living in a tiny nation: social cohesion.

In fact I would not support giving any concessions to Turkey, so I'm in that 70 percent. We already got the promises from the US, the UK (and from Poland and Italy) that they'll give us security guarantees during the membership progress, so FUCK ERDOGAN!!! So if NATO doesn't take us to join because of Erdogan, that's NATO's problem, not ours.

Yep. In geopolitics power, not our personal fancies, is what matters. That's the realist point of view - not because a realist likes it that way, but because a realist recognizes that's how geopolitics works. — Tzeentch

Yet if you argue to be a realist, you should observe that the tactics that the Soviet Union held to it's part of Europe didn't work so well. The Warsaw Pact collapsed. You can make a throne from bayonets, but it's difficult to sit on them. The only actual operations the Warsaw pact did was to attack and occupy one of it's members. That's not a "personal fancie".

Whereas the US empire by listening to Europeans themselves and favoring for example European integration has worked well: Europeans like to have the US here.

Your use of the term "Finlandization" seemed contradictory to what I believe the term means. — Tzeentch

It really isn't at all contradictory. What I described was just facts what was included with the Soviet Union in "refraining from opposing the former's foreign policy rules". That's what they did, hence there's no contradiction.

For some reason you think that it's equivalent to be under US spehere of influence and under Russian / Soviet sphere of influence. I've established the fact that how nations treat others is quite different (for example Russia and Ukraine compared to Finland), but the fact is that in general being under the Russian sphere of influence simply sucks big time. Doesn't work, and hence Russia has to then use military force.

Do you think European countries, being part of NATO, are free to pursue their own foreign policy if it conflicts with United States' interests? I can assure you they're not. — Tzeentch

They have quite a lot more to say than with being under Russian sphere of influence, that's for sure.

Just look at TurkTürkiye.

Lol, another one of ssu's "pulled it from my arse" pseduo-facts. I.e. standard ssu post. — Streetlight

Another standard ad hominem from down under, literally and in figure of speech.

In the 20th and 21st Century usually US presidents have usually served two terms. If they serve one term, there's a problem. Usually it's the economy.

This happened to:

Hoover = the Great Depression
Ford = the 1973-1975 recession
Carter = 1980 recession (yes, failed hostage rescue also impacted)
Bush (Sr) = early 1990's recession

Voluntariness is not a factor in this. — Tzeentch

What?

That a country joins voluntarily a treaty or it's forced by military force (occupation etc.) to have foreign troops and bases is the same for you? So in your idea Sweden and Finland joining NATO is the same thing as the US invading Iraq? I think they are not.

Your genuinely saying that voluntariness of joining organizations by independent countries isn't a factor?

Cuba also voluntarily joined a USSR-led military alliance. It made no difference to the United States. — Tzeentch

Actually Cuba didn't join the Warsaw Pact.

And it did make the difference that the US didn't and hasn't invaded Cuba. The US has Guantanamo Bay base since in 1903 newly independent Cuba and the US made lease agreement, which has no fixed expiration date. Yet Cuba hasn't been invaded by the US. It surely has tried all kinds of ways to overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro, yet Cuban deterrence has worked.

You seem to be using a different definition of the term than what I found.

By that definition Europe is essentially Finlandized by the United States. — Tzeentch

Really, Tzeentch, really?

So you copy paste what wikipedia says Finlandization and then say I have opposing views about Finlandization? As a Finn and an history I think I genuinely know the history and politics of my shitty country far more than you.

If you really think that the US and the Soviet Union treated the same way European countries, I think you are seriously ignorant about history. And the basic issue is that even Great Powers treat very differently different countries. For example France treats quite differently Mali compared to Luxembourg, even if both countries have been part of France. Just as Russia now treats Finland and Ukraine quite differently. Even Putin has said that:

Russia has "no problem" if Finland and Sweden join NATO, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday. "We don't have problems with Sweden and Finland like we do with Ukraine," Putin told a news conference in the Turkmenistan capital of Ashgabat.

(see here)

Which above simply undermines this idea that the most important factor which lead to Russia invading Ukraine was the enlargement of NATO. NATO enlargement is only a minor reason, the real reasons are quite old style Russian thinking about Ukraine.

Now they have NATO bases and NATO peacekeepers. — Tzeentch

Which they wanted to have.

The little obvious fact that the NATO troops and NATO are actually welcome.



What point in that this is a voluntary defense pact and the collective defense organization of Europe you do not understand?

Also, what is wrong with "Finlandization"? — Tzeentch

Your asking a Finn about that?

Your asking basically a question: "What is wrong in a foreign intelligence service basically being in your government with veto-power and then being active on nearly everything and intervening in everything?"

That intervention goes from who can be in the government and who can be the president, to things like what kind of movies can be shown or not, what books can be published and even what kind of video games can be played.

(Yes, the latter is true. The Russian embassy contacted the Finnish government about the early computer game "Raid over Moscow" and demanded it to be censored. As the administration didn't find any laws that this could be done (and rightfully thought this was nonsense), then communist Parliament members demanded the game taken out from stores and Soviet sympathizers in the media made a huge issue about the game and it's violence. It's the only video/computer game to make a political row in Finnish politics.



That was Finlandization.

That is how Soviet/Russian intelligence services operate. That is how Putin operates. Now you can compare to your country, if it's in the West, the UK or Australia and ask how many video games has the CIA tried to censor in your country? How many times the US has threatened with retaliatory actions if your country picks the wrong candidate in the elections for prime minister or president?

Finland joining the EU was actually a close call in the Parliament. Finland joining NATO wasn't. That really should tell you a lot.

I mean, has anyone given any thought to how this plays out? If the Democrats are successful at establishing that there really was a coup attempt, and if everyone agrees - granting all that - how does this play out? — Streetlight

If everyone would agree, that would be the end and things would move on. But they don't. There's a lot of people like NOS4A2 that think this all is a huge democratic conspiracy ...and Trump won.

Because the democrats won't win in 2024. Not under Biden. And they're not going to do anything substantial to Trump other than sing an angry poem at him or something. So when all this becomes established beyond reasonable doubt, and then the Republicans win - there's one single point of significance: the American people will have endorsed a coup.

That's where this goes. — Streetlight

Americans give their support to the President in office, if the economy is good. If it's bad, vote the other guy. And nothing else matters much. Likely the economy is lousy in 2024, so likely you are correct. The only thing is that the political polarization will just go to even more extremes.

Trump has never tried to "broaden his support", but just has doubled down on his core supporters. I guess many Republicans think the same.

The Borowitz Report: Trump Fears Putin Is Too Distracted by Ukraine to Help Him with 2024 Campaign — jorndoe

Trump being Trump, the narcissist:

“He gave a long speech the other night, and was going on and on about Ukraine and didn’t mention me once,” Trump said. “This should never be allowed to happen in this country.”

Calling Putin “too low-energy” to deal with Ukraine and the 2024 U.S. election at the same time, Trump said that his erstwhile ally had “priorities that are very, very bad.”

“He’s spending all his time spreading disinformation about Ukraine when he could be spreading disinformation about Sleepy Joe Biden,” Trump said. “Quite frankly, Vladimir Putin is a disgrace.”

Trump revealed that he had called the Russian President several times in recent days but that his calls went straight to voice mail.

“When I was President, I could’ve spent all my time invading Canada, but I always took his calls,” Trump said.

2024 Elections, here we come...

You seem to think it isn't trying to do that?

It certainly hasn't worked until February this year. — baker

Hasn't it? I don't think NATO has attacked Russia at any point. Even now, it's not putting it's troops in Ukraine or establishing no-fly-zones, which pretty well makes my point.

Russia is reacting to decades of NATO expansion and over a decade of their warnings about Ukraine not being heeded. There is no question in my mind that this general is aware of this wider context. — Tzeentch

And without NATO they would have likely attacked earlier. Some if not all Baltic states surely would either have Russian bases or have their frozen conflict and Russian "peacekeepers".

Aleksandr Dugin made it clear what is the goals of the Eurasian Russia in the early 2000's:

At one point in his textbook, Dugin confides that all arrangements with “the Eurasian bloc of the continental West,” headed by Germany, will be merely temporary and provisional in nature. “The maximum task [for the future],” he underscores, “is the ‘Finlandization’ of all of Europe.”

As for the former Soviet Union republics situated within Europe, all—with the single exception of Estonia—are to be absorbed by Eurasia-Russia. Belarus, Dugin pronounces, “should be seen as part of Russia.” In a similar vein, Moldova is assigned to what Dugin terms the “Russian South.” On Ukraine, Dugin stipulates that, with the exception of its three westernmost regions—Volhynia, Galicia, and Transcarpathia—Ukraine, like Belarus, constitutes an integral part of Russia-Eurasia.

(John B. Dunlop, 2004)

Actually, Gorbachev hoped to use Finlandization at the former Warsaw Pact countries, but that didn't work out as the Soviet Union collapsed.

Another issue. How is NATO changing because of the war in Ukraine?

More readiness:

Nato’s secretary general has said this week’s Madrid summit will agree the alliance’s most significant transformation for a generation, putting 300,000 troops at high readiness in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Jens Stoltenberg said the military alliance’s forces in the Baltic states and five other frontline countries would be increased “up to brigade levels” – doubled or trebled to between 3,000 and 5,000 troops.

That would amount to “the biggest overhaul of our collective defence and deterrence since the cold war,” Stoltenberg said before the meeting of the 30-country alliance, which runs from Tuesday to Thursday this week.

I think this speech from the new British Army Chief of Staff tells what the future of NATO is going to look like. Very much like the one during the Cold War.

The "1937 Moment" and emphasis on "mobilization":

Oh, right, so Finland just promises to enforce its laws in the service of Erdogan's purposes? Yeah, that makes it so much better — Streetlight

That's what it says.

Erdogan was milking the moment, and NATO actually also wants the two shitty countries to join it. So this vague memorandum he then got.

And it's sooo much better that you brought up the totally irrelevant fact that Erdogan didn't notice at first but now does. Wow. Stunning and brave. I'm sure all the people Erdogan will murder with the weapons provided by Sweden and Finland will die better knowing that. — Streetlight

Turkish media has proclaimed it to be a victory for Turkey and that's what Erdogan wanted. And how it is represented in the Turkish media is the important thing here.

I mean, who actually reads the actual memorandums? Just look at the Trump peace deal with the Taleban: to call it a peace agreement when the other side (the Taleban, or the Emirate of Afghanistan) can continue it's war against the Afghan republic isn't in my view a peace agreement. But that's what it was referred to, a peace deal.

I think the 1st of January 2022 happened quite before there was even serious talk about Finnish NATO membership.

And btw, when asked before (if it was OK for Turkey), Erdogan gave a green light without any conditions. Only later he noticed the chance to milk things. I think this is typical to both NATO and EU membership talks (as is the case of North Macedonia and it's EU talks). And of course, there's a long road still for our shitty country to be part of the evil-NATO. Likely in the end of this year?

But it's good that we are actually now talking about the actual memorandum.

I don't think so. He'll always be our manic clown. — Tate

If the movie would be done as a comedy, like "The Death of Stalin", it would be far more accurate. But as Hollywood is liberal, they have to portray the seriousness of the threat. Not emphasize the whimsical nature of it all.

But the movie will happen...

Lol trust you to play defense for your shitty country capitulating to a murderous warmonger and enablimg him to mirder more people. — Streetlight

When you say something that is wrong, I'll correct you.

Nobody is amending anything. If you actually would read the memorandum (which you won't).
And I don't know how much Erdogan in mirdering his people.

At least some Turkish NATO officers that just had to happen to be in the NATO HQ when the coup happened, seeked political asylum in the West (from Erdogan's wrath). So yes, Turkey is a problematic member, that's true.

Yep, both Jason Bourne and now (allegedly) Donald Trump can lift up their fat-asses from the backseat once inside a vehicle.

I'm just wanting to see the film about Trump & Jan 6th. Of course, as this is America, the movie will try to portray everything as very "presidential", not as chaotic and mindless as reality actually was. :snicker:

Agreed to amend their terrorism laws — Streetlight

At least Finland isn't changing it laws and likely isn't Sweden, so enough with your typical bullshit lies.

And as the objective seems for some just to make this thread into a place for personal ad hominem attacks or the similar, here's a link to the actual memorandum. So please, I would like that the people would read it first:

Trilateral Memorandum

What should be noted that the PKK is a terrorist organization by the EU, so this isn't at all different policy from before. And Finland has no "pending deportation or extradition requests of terror suspects".

At least Erdogan has made the establishment to speak of Türkiye, not Turkey anymore. Tells a little bit about his personality, actually. But otherwise, I think Turkey Türkiye's government will interpret the agreement as much as possible to Erdogan's favour.

Needless to say, the real issue is if deportations happen in the future, as now these are viewed under the media searchlight at least here and likely in Sweden.

What is the rational reply to someone hating and despising you (for decades) and preparing to attack you with military force? — baker

The rational reply would be deterrence, to have the capability of defending your country from an attack from this threat. And then continue to be at peace, because your deterrence keeps that someone from attacking you.

I guess the country with largest nuclear arsenal in the World can pretty much do that.

But hey, with all those "artificial" countries around you, which have territories that are culturally, historically and ethnically inseparable from your country, what else would be "rational", than annex those territories and make large scale invasions into these countries.

Isn't something that changes due to events, public and political debate, a kind of tradition — ChatteringMonkey

Not in my view:

tradition = the transmission of customs or beliefs from generation to generation, or the fact of being passed on in this way.
=an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior (such as a religious practice or a social custom)

Moral constructivism is not saying all tradition is ethics either, but that what is ethical or moral is determined by societal traditions... those traditions would be larger than merely ethics or morals strictu sensu, but do include them. So maybe we don't really disagree. — ChatteringMonkey

The ethics that we share with our ancestors hundreds of years ago is surely what we would now call a tradition (cultural or religious etc). Yet we can notice that even in our (short?) lifetimes nuances have changed in what is ethical. And those changes we cannot say are from a tradition. So I don't think we have a real disagreement here.

The argument against tradition as morality is typically one in which morality is seen out of it's historical context (slavery is morally bad regardless, always, everywhere), and therefor contrary to what you seem to be saying, 'unchangeble' or absolute. — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not saying that. Both can change.

What I'm saying is that they aren't so interdependent as to say ethics = tradition. Ethics can change due to events, public and political debate about ethical issues and changes in the society. That doesn't mean that ethics are linked to traditions of the culture and society.

LONDON, June 27 (Reuters) - Russian hacker group Killnet claimed responsibility on Monday for a DDOS cyber attack on Lithuania, saying it was in response to Vilnius's decision to block the transit of goods sanctioned by the European Union to the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad.

"The attack will continue until Lithuania lifts the blockade," a spokesperson for the Killnet group told Reuters. "We have demolished 1652 web resources. And that's just so far."

NATO needs a more “visible” presence in the Baltics to counter the threat Russia poses from Belarus, Lithuania’s President Gitanas Nausėda warned on Friday.

Speaking ahead of the summit, Nausėda told POLITICO that “very huge fundamental changes” in neighboring Belarus make Lithuania more vulnerable to a quick Russian attack — and necessitate a shift in the region’s security arrangements.

First Kallas of Estonia, now Nauséda of Lithuania worried about the situation.

Still on the level of "usual stuff happening in the Baltics with Russia" in my view.

Perhaps needless to say, but for Japan after the devastating and utter defeat in WW2, there genuinely was a perfect reason for the whole country collectively to rethink just what traditions are really worth wile to uphold in the new situation. The Samurai mentality and Bushido wouldn't be the best ethical traditions to build the post-war Japan.

Ethics can obviously change, hence ethics ≠ traditions.

I think this bizarre incident of Yukio Mishima's actions is a perfect example how some conservatives are totally blind to reality and see cultural decadence and erosion of values when societies and manners in them change. They are fixated in the past and if the present doesn't look like the past, they think all is lost. It's a common view, although Mishima went to the extreme.

If I remember correctly (so correct me if I'm wrong), Mishima did seppuku after the JSDF soldiers, that he thought he would inspired to join him, simply mocked and laughed at him. And what else was he than a eccentric lunatic? The real failure is to think that those JSDF soldiers weren't patriotic or didn't hold Japanese heritage in high value. Likely many of the officers and NCOs in the JSDF and earlier in the National Police Reserve were WW2 veterans, just like those in the new Bundeswehr in Germany. But it wasn't the Imperial Japan of before anymore.

Mishima actually hadn't served in the Imperial Armed Forces of Japan and hence didn't participate in WW2, an experience that usually would make people see the realities of those ideals Mishima so much upheld. Now the dismissal on medical grounds gave him an inferiority complex.

From last Thursday:

Chairman Jerome Powell has said that US government debt is on an 'unsustainable path' while admitting that he underestimated the threat of inflation and warning that a recession is possible.

Powell's remarks came in testimony before the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday, as the powerful Fed chair wrapped up a second day of appearances on Capitol Hill.

'The US is on an unsustainable fiscal path, meaning the debt is growing faster than the economy,' said Powell. 'By definition, that is unsustainable.'

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates in it's latest report that this year total federal revenue will be 4,8 trillion and the deficit that was 2,7 trillion last year (and earlier in 2020 basically as large as the total revenue) will be just be one trillion. Yet they (the CBO) also forecast that there won't be any recession.

America orchestrated regime change, — Isaac

There's a difference between supporting a regime change and orchestrating one. Sorry, but this revolution doesn't look like some "Operation Ajax". You don't have anything else to say on this, but the facts already know and discussed earlier.

And that revolution was in 2014. Several elections have gone, several administrations have gone and we have the new special military operation that started this February.

So you keep saying, — Isaac

So did Putin say. Period. End of story.

Just move on...

If your point is that American pandemic payouts have now devalued the dollar, I don't think it works that way. — Tate

Devaluation (or revaluation) of a currency is a different thing. Remember that other countries had similar policies as the US and in many cases the US dollar / US markets are thought to be the most safest (still).

Right— and it’s complete nonsense. Anyone who buys into that really just hasn’t looked into the matter closely enough. — Xtrix

I agree. Those who get the money before the inflation kicks in are the real winners. And usually the wage earners are the last to demand higher compensation due to the higher prices. Yet there's ample amount of literature of wage inflation.

But even if it's nonsense, it's politically quite convenient. Just as is the idea that high inflation ought to be best fought by lowering salaries!