I cannot imagine how stupid one has to be to argue that the US does not have the 'appetite' for more war. — Streetlight

They have an appetite for war that doesn't show, doesn't affect them and what they can finance by simply printing more money. People likely don't even know that the US is still in Iraq still fighting the "War on Terror". Among other places.

The point was that corporate profits have done virtually nothing but rise at an increasingly large margin above nominal GDP. Inflation, no inflation, crash, no crash, crisis, no crisis... none of it's had the slightest impact on the overall trend. — Isaac

The overall trend has been that nominal GDP has risen too: the World economy is far larger than in 1989, when lot's of Chinese where still bicycling the streets of Beijing and living in the countryside. But having said that, it's also true what you are saying about corporate profits. They have been on a far higher level than before.



The basic problem is that monetary policy has started to be about assisting the market, make it so that corporation reap good profits and the stock market goes up. It hasn't been about inflation as the stock market (or more generally a financial) bubble that burst during 2009 crisis was desperately tried to reinflated, which cause inflation to stay low as the obvious correction would have deflationary.

But then I guess came all that covid stimulus and finally the floodgates of inflation. And now the nominal profits can be up, but substract inflation and those winning aren't so big. We finally have the inflation problem and likely it won't go away easily.

That Inflation rate what you referred to is simply wrong.

Do note that it was made in 2019, three years ago. So enough of that kind of bullshit and here's some actual inflation figures of the present:





@frank is right on this.

They behave like automatons. It's hard to have a conversation with bots saying "NATO caca" over and over again. — Olivier5

Talking to automated bots. But I don't think the objective is to have a discussion. Just to express their views and dominate the thread and ad hominem others.

Look at the US's actual investment in a peace deal — Isaac

Page not found.

Your persistent resort to whataboutism has been noted already. — Isaac

Your total irrelevance to what people actually write has been noted by many.

The US is on record as wanting to give Russia 'it's own Afghanistan' in Ukraine. It will joyfully let Russia bleed there, along with the Ukrainians upon whom that blood will fall. — Streetlight

It's the Ukrainians and Putin who can stop this war.

They're also economic. Anti-competitive practises as a direct result of deregulation lead to less efficient use of resources and more expensive goods. Efficient free markets only exist where buyers and sellers have equal bargaining power, information is freely available and the market is mature and unlikely to be disrupted by new entrants. Those markets you can leave alone. — Benkei

:100: :up:

Free markets need a lot of institutions to remain free.

What else is new???

We've already gone over this: it's entirely possible both sides are engaged in propaganda and we should be skeptical of both. Once upon a time you mentioned yourself repeatedly the fog of war. — boethius

Hence that fog doesn't mean that a) we cannot say anything about the war, b) everything said is a lie and c) we'll have a more clear understanding of the conflict later.

3. Providing enough arms and information support to maintain a total war situation in Ukraine ... but not intervention that would have a chance of actually defeating the Russians, for the sake of justifying sanctions that likewise won't defeat the Russians but happen to make American fracking profitable for the first time ... and maybe for the long term! — boethius

I don't think this is so. I think both the Ukrainians and the West are thinking of "winning" in the sense that Russia has to submit to not perfect terms for it. There not going to enlarge the war to Russia proper. And there are genuine incentives for the West to have a peace deal in this war (or at least an armstice) starting from the 11 milloin refugees Ukraine has now. Biden and other Western leaders understand that there's no appetite for a decades long war in order just to keep Russia bleeding.

4. Encouraging Zelensky to reject peace terms (both through teasing things like a "no fly zone" — boethius

I don't think this has happened. Nobody promised a "no fly zone", especially with NATO participation.

This is no longer WWII or the cold war where there is some transcendental value (such as freedom and democracy) that the West represents and can excuse some "bad apples" and "mistakes" happening. — boethius

Really?

Assault on Ukraine is quite similar to the assault on my country in 1939 by the Soviet Union. Unprovoked and not well thought.

Now when Ukraine is fighting Russia, I understand how it felt in Sweden during the Winter War. There's a lot of interesting similarities, even if there are many differences:

I was going to say the same thing -- their wives wouldn't let them. — Moses

And even if have a society that where women are in a more "traditional" role, as is said, by no means does it mean that they wouldn't have an important role and say in the family.

I have not. Based on your comment I guess I would not last long apparently anyway. (joke) — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Let's think about a relationship, which quite similar at least in some parts to slavery. Owning a pet. You can buy the animals, they are your property. If you kill it, you are not going to jail. As animals they are inferior to you and they usually cannot put up with you. They are totally dependent on you, few would even survive for long if they would be abandoned. Yet in animal world, pets of humans are having a spectacularly easy privileged life and their owners do take into account their health, but also their needs and wishes. And pet owners usually think of the pets as family members and are sad when the animal dies, just as they would be if it would be a human relative or friend. And people usually aren't cruel to animals and don't like those that are, especially to their pets.

Hence if we can have an emotional bond with other species, we surely can have that emotional bond to our own, which we have been programmed to have. Add then that women bring up our children and that families are created by marriage are very important in any human society there is. The point here I'm making is that even if in some societies women are more subjugated than in our society (especially in earlier times), one shouldn't think of them not having a say.

Enslavement is something that where we really have to the social norms for this to put aside our natural empathy. The easiest way is to define a person as a prisoner, either a convicted criminal or let's say a prisoner of war. And earlier you had to have those norms in society for enslavement.

And finally, anyone who thinks men can enslave women should start this enslavement from their own mothers. I think the vast majority of men don't have any intension or desire of enslaving their own mothers, if they are alive.

Btw here it is Mother's Day, so greetings to all mothers!

Corporations are not run democratically. Elections (which is how officials, who make up the “state”, obtain their positions) are democratic.

Thus people have some say in the latter decisions. Workers have no say in the decisions of the board of directors.

Avoiding corporations is nearly impossible. — Xtrix

Corporations are not governments, though. If a group of people start a corporation it makes no sense to me that others, by virtue of them accepting a job there, should have control over it. It makes no sense to me that the people who conceive of, fund, build, accept the risk, and who are responsible for its operation from its conception until its demise should not get to decide how it should operate. You haven’t offered a single reason why this should be so. — NOS4A2

I'd urge both of you not to think purely of companies as an abstraction.

Cooperatives can be quite effective. Some of the largest companies that dominate the retail market in my country are cooperatives. They're not at all somehow weaker than other corporations. Furthermore, a lot of the issues here, like how much say do workers have in the company, come for other institutional factors: what is the role of labour unions? How are the labour laws in country? Corporations adapt easily to this environment and you can notice easily the difference of their actions let's say in Nordic countries compared to some exclusive zones in Third World countries.

Sorry, but I have the problem here of just what Kurth describes "post-" here?

"Post" means something after, yet many things can be far longer trends. Seems that people just have this urge to declare that just now an important change has happened and made us different from earlier times: hence the term "post". And that the change is happening just now.

I don't think it goes this way. With a lot of things, change happens very slowly, if not all. Once same technological solution has made something cost-effective, it doesn't change. Just look at how long we have had books. Sure, now we have all the electronic gadgets and listening to books is extremely easy (no hassle with tape recordings), yet I think books still will be around for some time.

Or Let's take the idea post-conscription, post-modern army. Kurth, a veteran of the Navy, has made his career in Ivy League universities, the Naval War College and top notch think tanks making himself part of the intellectual establishment in the US. What he explains sounds like the dominant narrative in defense circles during that time than anything else, especially after the victorious Gulf War. The idea of the Deterrence-armed forces had it's first heyday when the US was the sole owner of the nuclear weapon. But quickly it was understood that conventional forces were needed and conventional wars would be fought. The Gulf War 1991 gave a new boost to thinking of RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs), but the last two decades have shown something else. Americans loosing the war in Afghanistan shows the obvious limits of the tech approach to war and it's obvious perils, how it can all go wrong.

The answer to Stealth-bombers and long range precision weapons is simply not to have conventional targets for them: don't fight conventionally a superior adversary. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if you have a B-2 stealth bomber if the enemy is guys separately building fertilizer bombs in their separate small farm huts and then someone else plants the simple bombs on the side of the road (and we call them IEDs). Put then a satellite to track them and try to destroy each farmhouse with a submarine launched cruise missile (or an UAV launched missile) and you aren't anywhere close to cost effectiveness.

The whole "Revolution in Military Affairs" has again and again been proven that hasn't happened that way. Military technology hasn't made things obsolete as people have anticipated. The Taliban won the war in Afghanistan with Cold War era weapons and few if any modern weapons. In the Ukrainian war once the precision guided weapons have been used, then it's basically on to WW2 technology. They are digging trenches in this conventional war of the 2020's just as they did over 100 years ago in WW1. For the same reasons: trenches work. There is no counterargument in that a guided weapon can destroy easily infantry sitting in a trench. Well, go then and try to bomb every goddam ditch there is next to every field in a country of the size of Ukraine.

His view then was that one of the main factors undermining the US's status as a cohesive nation is media enterprises that turned the American society into a multicultural audience. — frank

Now this is the more interesting line with Kurth. But let's start from the basics: Francis Fukuyama was (and still is) an idiot, so let's forget the "End of History" bullshit. Samuel Huntington captured the moment thanks to 9/11 with the argument that it's going to be "The West against the Rest". Kurth argues that the real fight will be inside America with "multiculturalism vs conservatism". Of coures that Conservatism isn't said to be conservatism, but "Western culture". I would argue that "conservatism" is far better name here to what "Western culture" is for Kurth. Especially if we understand that "conservatism" can be thinking of old ideas and not just what is on the political right.

Because let's face it: Socialism is a Western thought and so is Marxism. And Feminism is really part of Western Culture too. In fact, a lot of "Western Culture" has allways been this radical anti-establishment bickoring starting from classical liberalism itself! Hence these issue have far more Longue durée than people want to admit, and there's actually not much "after modernism" in them.

If men wanted to, they could enslave women.

I know it reads really extreme. But it’s the truth. Men could do it, they just don’t. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

I guess you haven't been married.

I think that continuing old threads is a good thing to do. Far better that there is one long thread about some subject than 10 short ones. It also makes the threads interesting themselves.

For me it's great that in the political or current threads Corona pandemic has basically just one thread. Or then there is the long Trump thread. Yet many philosophical threads can be "years long". And why not?

Some philosophical questions don't change a lot in time.

1. So, according to you, invading Cyprus, Syria, Iraq, is "internal politics" of Turkey? Invading, occupying, and annexing Tibet is "internal politics" of China? In that case, invading Ukraine is "internal politics" of Russia! — Apollodorus

That's what he didn't say, troll.

If we're going to even attempt any real assessment of what's going in, we're going to need to do better than taking the intelligence of either the Ukrainians (with a massive security incentive to lie), or the US (with a massive financial incentive to lie), as our basis. — Isaac

So... that leaves you getting your information from the Russians. Right. :snicker:

Or then you could listen to what the UN Secretary-General says:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a violation of its territorial integrity and of the Charter of the United Nations.

It must end for the sake of the people of Ukraine, Russia, and the entire world.

I visited Moscow and Kyiv with a clear understanding of the realities on the ground.

I entered an active war zone in Ukraine with no immediate possibility of a national ceasefire and a full-scale ongoing attack on the east of the country.

Before the visit, the Ukrainian government issued an appeal to the United Nations and to me personally – expressed publicly by the Deputy Prime Minister – regarding the dire plight of civilians in the devastated city of Mariupol and specifically the Azovstal plant.

In my meeting with President Putin, I therefore stressed the imperative of enabling humanitarian access and evacuations from besieged areas, including first and foremost, Mariupol.

I strongly urged the opening of a safe and effective humanitarian corridor to allow civilians to reach safety from the Azovstal plant.

A short time later, I received confirmation of an agreement in principle.

We immediately followed up with intense preparatory work with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) along with Russian and Ukrainian authorities.

Our objective was to initially enable the safe evacuation of those civilians from the Azovstal plant and later the rest of the city, in any direction they choose, and to deliver humanitarian aid.

I am pleased to report on some measure of success.

Together, the United Nations and the ICRC are leading a humanitarian operation of great complexity – both politically, and in terms of security.

It began on 29 April and has required enormous coordination and advocacy with the Russian Federation and Ukrainian authorities.

So far, two safe passage convoys have been successfully completed.

In the first, concluded on 3 May, 101 civilians were evacuated from the Azovstal plant along with 59 more from a neighbouring area.

In the second operation, completed last night, more than 320 civilians were evacuated from the city of Mariupol and surrounding areas.

A third operation is underway – but it is our policy not to speak about the details of any of them before they are completed to avoid undermining possible success.

It is good to know that even in these times of hyper-communications, silent diplomacy is still possible and is sometimes the only effective way to produce results.

So far, in total, nearly 500 civilians found long-awaited relief, after living under relentless shelling and scarce availability of water, food, and sanitation.

The evacuees have shared moving tales with UN staff. Mothers, children and frail grandparents spoke of their trauma. Some were in urgent need of medical attention.

I hope that the continued coordination with Moscow and Kyiv will lead to more humanitarian pauses to allow civilians safe passage from the fighting and aid to reach those in critical need.

We must continue to do all we can to get people out of these hellscapes.

But I guess some will just continue with NATO bashing and telling how evil the US is. If someone should point out what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that is. I guess that is the purpose of this thread for some.

Ukrainians are pawns who get to die so the US can win their geostrategic fight against Russia. — Streetlight

Just like my country and Sweden are now pawns for US geostrategic ambitions? Right.

I understand your point perfectly well. I even think it's a perfectly legitimate and reasonable possibility. — Isaac

Well, I think we could leave it there and go onward.

* * *

How long the war will be and the possibility of escalation is another issue, which would be more interesting to discuss.

Several US generals have commented that basically Ukraine could do a large counterattack in six months. The Ukrainians have hinted that they could do this in the summer, perhaps next month. The simple fact is that if new equipment and new weapons systems are given, it will take months for them to be trained, shipped out and taken into service. May 9th will likely come and go. As this war is now fought on such high tempo that it's basically depleting both sides equipment very fast. But what the death toll will be later is very unfortunate. Also for the Russians to reorganize their warfighting capability will take months too.

I agree but it's far worse in Ukraine right now than in Turkey right now. Magnitude matters. — Olivier5

Of course our forum troll leaves out that when Erdogan made his putsch, it was Turkish officers working in NATO positions that were the first to be kicked out. I remember some applying for political asylum.

And obviously what isn't mentioned is how Putin has tried to befriend Erdogan, sold him the S-400 missile system and not even making a big issue about Turkey shooting down one of it's fighter bombers some time ago.

Putin wants to take over Ukraine - he said so
- But how can you tell, he also said he only wants to de-nazify it? — Isaac

Are you really serious?

How about that he annexed Crimea. How about the recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk Republics? Or the many times he has referred Ukraine to be an artificial country? And that Ukraine should be with Russia because Rus was the cradle of Russia. If your objective would be only regime change (denazification) or preventing NATO membership, you don't do all above. And that's my point which you seem not to understand.

If a leader of another country refers to your country as artificial, alarm bells should go off. Someone saying of another sovereign state that it's artificial is extremely aggressive. If he then annexes parts of this country, it really should be obvious what his intensions are.

This feels like debating the German invasion of Poland by people arguing that Hitler would have been satisfied and the war prevented if only Poland would have accepted it's terms and hence the war was fault of Western allies, because they declared war on Germany. And that if one would refer to what Hitler had written in his "Mein Kampf" about Lebensraum, that would be totally meaningless. Or just something picked up to proves one's point, not a real reflection on what Mr Hitler's objectives are.

Because you've decided that some of the things he says are lies and some are true. Some things are irrelevant to his motives and some aren't. — Isaac

His intentions are obviously important. Likely he believes that the West has always been out to get Russia. And naturally that any opposition movement against his rule is machinated by the West and it's intelligence services.

Just as many American politicians believed in the "Domino Theory" and lastly they believed that the US has to be in Afghanistan, because it otherwise becomes a safe haven for terrorists. Yet these ideas might not be actually truthful, but surely they do guide the people believing in them.

You keep reverting to this tactic. Putin said that he was invading Ukraine to rid it of Nazis. We can point to all sorts of things Putin said. If you're just going to assume the ones that support your narrative are true and the ones which oppose it are lies then obviously your narrative is going to come out looking well supported. — Isaac

In this case I think what Putin says and does is far more important than what you, me, or someone else. He made the decision to start this war.

Choosing devastating war over diplomacy (even including concessions) is not the 'noble' choice. It's just fucking psychopathic. A sane nation does not escalate every conflict to full blown war just to 'teach them a lesson'. We hope that mature nations don't act like parents from a 1950s soap opera. — Isaac

And this kind of behavior, which you aptly describe, is the reason why countries have opted to join NATO. The fears that the Baltic States or Poland has had about Russia have shown to be true, unfortunately. Many didn't think it would be so.

I'm very happy that the Baltic States are in NATO. Because otherwise they would have now at least Russian military bases inside their borders. Or worse, there would be puppet states inside them like in Moldova, Georgia or Ukraine.

The argument is that America ought to have known that it's sabre-rattling might provoke Russia into something like this. — Isaac

Look, the thing is that Russia would have done something similar like this even without the expansion of NATO. Or do you genuinely think that Russia would be peaceful towards Ukraine and other state in it's near abroad, if there wouldn't be a NATO? Do you genuinely think that if Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, Sweden and Finland would be joining NATO? Of course not! Just think for a while who is the active part in joining NATO and for what reasons here.

Just think about what it means when Putin says that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”. Just stop for a moment and think what that means. Just think how Russia has approached other ex-Soviet states.

Something that Austria never did with Hungary or other state that had been been part of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Something that other former Empires have not done afterwards. But somehow, Russia is given this right to "naturally" be a bully as if it would have the right for a "sphere of influence".

Even the US picks it's fights to the weakest and smallest in America. It has absolutely has no ability to occupy the larger Latin American states as Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela or Mexico. It can be a bully with small countries like Grenada, Guatemala or Haiti.

Compared to central planning, a light touch of "free market" laissez faire makes wonders.

And of course it's not a recipe for everything.

And...that's basically it. End of story.

I didn't mean this war, which is really not that important in the bigger picture, I mean the fascist direction of the US and Europe and it's decline and probably even higher rates of wealth transfers to our own oligarchs. — Benkei

Please stick to the thread. Where the West will go is another matter.

What happens to Ukraine (or Russia) is the topic of this thread. Making a thread of the "Ukraine Crisis" something else than Ukraine or the war is inconsistent and basically what one side, Russia, wants it to be.

And on that note, I think Ukraine should be given a chance to join the European Union, but it make the requirements for that and adapt to EU norms just like Finland did. We'll be all happy together bitching about Brussels, as we do. Ukraine can change and leave it's former past away, just like the Baltic States did.

You say that the articles, as written, are defensive and inclusive - but we've just established that NATO does not always act in accordance with those written articles, so that seems irrelevant. — Isaac

When it tried to "reinvent" itself. For some time, Russia wasn't a threat and the Cold War era thinking was genuinely thought to be totally obsolete. When Estonia copied the Finnish idea of area defense and reservist army, idea it was basically reprimanded by some in NATO for obsolete thinking. Then for NATO it seemed that it would be without a mission, and there the stupidities started to mount. Russia has by it's actions consistently kicked NATO back to it's original form and finally has gotten the Europeans to rearm and Germany to change course.

I don't think that NATO now has any desires of "out of the area" operations in Asia or Africa.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too. — Isaac

Naturally the US has a lot of influence in NATO, but note the historically peculiar situation where European countries genuinely want to keep the US in Europe. As the old political saying goes, "Keep the Americans in, keep the Russians out and keep the Germans under control."

If the forum troll has one thing right, it is that the US did promote European integration. Of course it was a small cadre of Europeans that sold the idea of European integration, but the form of NATO also helped this. Just compare this to CENTO or SEATO. The two member states of CENTO, Iran and Iraq, had both revolutions afterward and had a long bloody war. Obviously things didn't go to plan there. SEATO simply just broke up because there was no push for such integration as in Europe. And now the US allies are quite separate in Asia.


I think there's two major reason why the US has such a dominant position in the World, one is the status of the dollar and the other is NATO, which has made the European Great powers (apart from Russia, naturally) be happy and complacent about the leadership role of the US. Just being the biggest economy wouldn't make it.

That Russia considers itself to have a sphere of influence and will protect it militarily if provoked is all that is necessary to accept that NATO expansion into that sphere acts as provocation. — Isaac

That's the problem. It considers something and acts as it retake it's Empire and have a sphere of influence, even if countries aren't willing to go with it. (Authoritarian Belarus didn't have that trouble)

Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument. — Isaac

Is it???

I think it's quite relevant. My country is in a position that it has to decide which sphere to take.

How then do you now support the counter-argument given against the Mearsheimer/Kennan/Burns narrative of a Russia provoked by NATO expansion. — Isaac

The Mearsheimer / Kennan narratives just assumes that large countries ought to have "buffer zones" and "spheres of influence" and can do whatever they want with them. If those state opted out of the Soviet Union / Russian Empire, there might be a reason for them to do it, you know.

And just how the Great Powers treat these "buffer zones" is crucial. One could argue that Canada is in the "buffer zone" of the US. So how many times the US has intervened in Canadian domestic politics? How many times the US has openly denounced some Canadian parties or candidates and openly promoted others? How many times the US has threatened with military intervention. The US has had those imperial ambitions on Canada and on Canadian territory in the 19th Century, that is true. But not in the 20th Century or now.

There's a little difference between being under the "sphere of influence" of the US or Russia. If you think that they are totally similar, then I have to disagree.

So the argument that NATO expansion was not provocation because NATO is merely a defensive organisation doesn't hold water does it? — Isaac

Let's go to NATO articles:

Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

It states that European states willing to join it are by unanimous agreement to be invited. A larger number of member states will increase those objective, both article 1 and 5. And you can judge yourself if the change both in Sweden and Finland towards NATO has happened because of actions by Russia or by some influencing campaign by the Biden administration.

And just compare the situation to the allies of US that it installed after an military invasion: Iraqi government and Afghan government. The Afghan government is no more, and it should be noted that Afghanistan under the Emirate hasn't turned into a terrorist safe haven (which was the reasoning for the war). And when the Pro-US government was still operating, there were huge difficulties in the relationship. And so is with Iraq. Closer inspection of this relationship shows that there is real tensions and huge problems in this relationship.

A lynchpin of the argument exculpating NATO is that it is merely a defensive organisation with no significant role in America's imperialistic agenda. I was merely pointing out that even you don't believe that, it's just a convenient narrative in your continued efforts to ensure discussion of America's culpability is sufficiently diluted as to be rendered useless. — Isaac

When it comes to international operations, especially the so-called "peace enforcing" operations, there is much to criticize.

I think a military organization ought to stick to it's founding rules: that NATO is a) a pact where the members won't use military force against each other and b) have a common defense. Article 1 is as important as Article 5, even if it should be obvious. It isn't. Just look at the Gulf Cooperation Council (or remember the former Warsaw Pact). Yet without NATO, I think another Greco-Turkish war would have already happened.

When NATO has ventured off from this, as it has done, starts the criticism. Still, do note how "disappointed" the US has been with NATO when it hasn't been this tool of US agenda. Members can choose how to participate and when. So as a tool of US imperialism, it's not a reliable tool to be used to every wish that the US has. NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, but it did participate in the war in Afghanistan, where in the end there were more NATO troops than Americans when Biden decided to pull out. NATO is basically only effective, when both the US and it's European members agree on things, not when the disagree.

And let's look at those major NATO operations:

Operation Allied Force, Kosovo-Montenegro-Serbia 1999
Afghanistan War, Afghanistan 2003
NATO Training Mission-Iraq, Iraq 2004
Operation Ocean Shield, Somalia 2009
Military Intervention in Libya 2011

Of these Operation Ocean Shield should be exempted, as both China and Russia (and India) have participated in similar operations and the operation is approved by the Security Council.

Are the Russian trolls and apologists really this desperate to push their agenda? :shade: — Christoffer

They are reurgitating the same message, but now it has grown old. Now there's no strategic surprise, it all can be anticipated and people do understand how the playbook goes.

Just as with the Russian incursions in our air spaces: yesterday a Russian Mi-17 flew several kilometers inside of Finnish air space on the eastern border and last Friday an An-30 aircraft breached both Swedish and Danish air space around Bornholm.

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. For me, I despise Russia, want Sweden and Finland to join Nato, and at the same time criticize Nato for past conduct. — Christoffer

This is the stupidity typical to our time. It's the absurdity of someone declaring himself to be against imperialism and then denying the obvious imperialism of one side and solely concentrating on the other side, as we can see in this thread. The inability to be critical about both sides when they deserve it is telling.

Nice Freudian slip. I thought NATO was totally independent and not at all America's lapdog. So what good would it do convincing "Americans" that Sweden and Finland are not worth defending? — Isaac

A strawman argument from you. The role of the US is obvious in NATO. One can arguably be critical of the actions that NATO has taken, especially with the Kosovo war and Libya. At least I was. What sucks in my mind is when NATO hasn't been in the role of a defense pact, but has tried out in it's a "new" NATO role (that even Trump pushed) where it has to counter "new threats" and act in other roles than in just as a defensive treaty. This "new NATO" thinking made a lot of Finns be critical about the organization. Which at those times before the Russian-Georgian war, had no plans to defend the Baltic States. I guess during those times if Finland would have joined, it would have been urged to do away with it's area defence and conscription, and opt to build it's armed forces to be better suited for international operations. Luckily that time has passed.

If Trump would have had his way, perhaps the US would have withdrawn from NATO, which likely would make the European countries form a new defensive pact. Let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are already in the dustbin of history.

That would surely happen.

The underlying objective is twofold: to a) convince Russians that the evil Westerners are nazis and that they are out to get them and b) to convince Americans that these people joining NATO are scum, closet nazis, and not worth wile to defend.

Now that's collboration, baby. — Baden

Wouldn't be the division of Poland in 1939 between the two be more than just collaboration, but cooperation?



And those that are so obsessed with nazis and the far right in Europe, should first look at what government openly has supported these movements:

It (Russia) has both turned a blind eye to far-right paramilitarism within its own borders and actively cultivated neo-Nazism in the West. These decisions align with its broader project to sow discord in Western democracies and influence transcontinental relations, despite its relatively weak military and economy. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support for right-wing violence in the West constitutes an element in his broader destabilization campaign.

If I remember correctly, the Nordic Resistance Movement was banned in Finland. The movement has had close ties with Russian extremist movements like the Russian Imperial Movement. (see here). And the movement openly seeked Russian assistance of "fellow minded" groups to participate in demonstrations on the Finnish Independence Day. At least a promise was given, but I don't know if anything came of it. But it at least tells how these racist movements don't have much left of the old divide between nazi and communist ideology. But then again, Russia isn't communist.

And of course, we shouldn't forget that there is underway an effort for trolling in the social media:

Since the beginning of Russia's attack on Ukraine, an aggressive campaign of trolling under the sign "Cyber Front Z" — referring to the war — has been ongoing. These so-called troll factories — which target Western leaders, media and social media — have been operating in Russia for years.

* * *

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, ordinary Russian internet users have also been recruited for trolling operations — such as online shaming.

The trolling efforts also attempt to fill the social media feeds of targeted users with disinformation. Another preferred method is "brigading", steering discussion on social media and in comments sections towards Kremlin-favoured opinions.

I think then one possibility is to enlargen the security council.

Which, of note, Naziism had not yet been invented in 1918. — boethius

And of course for the Finnish Air Force, the Swastika, the emblem for good luck, came from the first aircraft given to the White Forces by a Swedish Count Eric von Rosen during the War of Independence (or Civil War, as the politically correct name is), who had the emblem painted on his aircraft when the aircraft was flown to Finland.



So I guess the connection in that story fits in perfectly with the absolute bullshit one troll has here.... After all, if one Austrian adopts the symbol later for his small party, there is obvious link to then to that parties ideology.

But one is 100% correct that Russia is going to use that to paint Swedes and Finns into evil nazi scum. The people of the Baltic States are there already.

The idea that the US isn't involved or only minimally in my view is a gross underestimation of the involvement of the US intelligence and military across the world. — Benkei

I don't think you even bothered to read my argument. US is one player, but when it comes to Russia and Ukraine, it's a minor reason.

Just as I said, it would incorrect to assume that the actions that US did during the Cold War in Central America and the Caribbean happened only because of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The argument that "Because NATO, Russia is acting as it does" is a similar argument. The US has a long history of intervening in the area long before the Cold War. But were they afraid of Communism and countries becoming soviet allies like Cuba? Of Course! And so is Russia about NATO. That fact is that if NATO would have been disbanded, it would have been just easier for Putin to conquer back the states that had gotten independence when the Soviet Union collapsed. It's present in what he has said, what he has done and the whole issue what Russia, fortress Russia with it's buffer zones, is for Putin.

And as you have said you don't care a shit about Russian internal politics, well, that's your problem.

Of course Putin sees the US and NATO as enemy, but your argument that this war could have been prevented if not NATO expansion is something I simply disagree with. It doesn't take into account how Russia behaves in it's near abroad independently of the US.

But carry on. We'll revisit this in 5 or 10 years — Benkei

Let's do that. Because Putin might be viewed really then in different light as before.

Yeah, right when Putin and his minions start doing anti-Sweden and anti-Finland propaganda to the gullible Russian morons we start to see that narrative in here as well. It's disgusting really. — Christoffer

@Apollodorus is a genuine troll, so it's really not worth replying to him.

Enough people have tried to correct his delusions. It hasn't been just you or me, you know.

Don't feed the troll.

Plus, Finland has a long history of Nazism. It's a well-known fact that Finland aligned itself with Hitler in WW2. — Apollodorus

HAHAA!!!!

At least the Forum's Putin troll works like Clock-Work! Just as anticipated months ago, out comes the nazi card when Finland (& Sweden) will make their application.

It's downright pathetic to the point it becomes comedy. — Christoffer

Ignorance and 'supporting the troops' make anything that otherwise would be satire transform itself to be the truth.

Who knows, perhaps Putin will use May 9th as the day to acknowledge the war and declare mobilization.



Want to make a bet? When Finland and Sweden announce they are seeking membership in NATO, the aerospace of either or both countries will be infringed by Russian aircraft. Or a cyberattack happens. (Happened here precisely when Zelensky was talking to the local Parliament, so I guess they'll work with similar clockwork precision.)

Good collection. :up: Some videos have already been mentioned here.

If one doesn't have the time to read and someone is totally new to the subject, I urge looking at those (or listening while doing something else).

If the US had no imperialist designs on Ukraine, this war wouldn't have happened. — Benkei

Nonsense, Benkei.

Just try for a moment the idea that not everything revolves around the US.

Moldova had no intensions of joining NATO, it's non-aligned by it's constitution. But because it was a weak state, Russia intervened there, started a war there as there is an ethnic Russian minority, it could create a puppet state there where it has as "peacekeepers" Russian troops. And now Russia has huge influence over the country of Moldova. The same EXACT method it has used in Georgia and in Ukraine. And nothing to do with your goddam US. No American President promised anything to Moldova.

Hence your idea is as fallacious, illogical and as biased as would be as the idea that the US only intervened in Central America and the Caribbean because of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Which anybody would understand is pure bullshit. The US intervened in Central American and the Caribbean before the Cold War and likely would have continued to intervened in the area with or without the existence of the Soviet Union or the Cold War. Because it has it's "interests" there. Just like Russia has here.

But where the Americans afraid of Central American states collapsing as Dominoes and turning Communist? Hell Yeah!!! But that still doesn't change their assholery in the region. Just as it doesn't change the fact that Russia is an aggressive bully towards every former state of the Soviet Union that isn't under it's control, even if it scared about NATO. It would be similar or even worse without NATO.

Russia is trying to grab back every of it's former state of the empire it possibly can. It has never, repeat never put aside it's imperial ambitions. It hasn't had that moment what the UK understood after Suez, that it wasn't anymore the Greatest Power. No, Putin is truly making Russia great again, because it has to fight the nazis around it.

Putins regime already starting to demonize Sweden for it's own people and convince them that prominent Swedes are (were) evil nazis. It surely will do the same for my country, but it started with the Swedish "nazis". Perhaps as Russians don't hate enough Swedes.



I'm just waiting when the some persons will take on the topic (Swedes being nazis) here.