I think an important aspect of NATO's behavior in regards to the war in Ukraine is being left unaddressed.

Who have been some of the biggest hawks from the NATO side?

The United States (the most influential NATO member by a mile-and-a-half) and the United Kingdom, both having been involved in the blocking of a peace deal that was on the table in April of 2022.

What do these states have in common?

They're both island nations, and they don't share the same security concerns that the countries on the European mainland do.

Odd, how we Europeans are letting countries who will not bear the full burden of war in Europe stoke the fires.


Therefore following statement:

Europe would be better off replacing NATO with a military coalition that involves only the countries connected to the European mainland.

The combined GDP of the European nations dwarfs that of Russia (the only geopolitical competitor in the region), so there's really no reason Europe should lean on the United States for their security.


Obviously the practical implementation of this is a whole other story. The European Union is a non-democratic abomination that needs to be replaced with something that is actually functional before this could ever happen, but lets leave that aside for now.

Don't you think it's a little odd to simply start stealing from rich Russians, when the story is that this is "Putin's war" that no one in autocratic dictatorship Russia actually supports? :chin:

You're beating about the bush.

If you're in favor of using coercion in order to make people change their behavior that's fine. But don't sugar coat it by making appeals to 'responsibility'. As I said, responsibility can only be taken up voluntarily. "Imposing responsibility" is just a euphemism for coercion.

That suggest that you believe the Southern slave owners were being responsible in the way they conducted their businesses. — praxis

It doesn't suggest that at all.

What if a business dumped toxic chemicals into a nearby river in order to avoid the cost of proper disposal and the pollution had a negative effect on the environment and the health of nearby residents, would that be responsible or irresponsible? — praxis

That would be irresponsible.

Responsibility can't be imposed by force. That's just coercion.

What kind of a ridiculous question is that? You want a normal conversation or what?

No.

You know that’s silly. If you actually believed that, I could go to where you live and take all your liberty by force, make you my slave, and because you’re philosophically opposed to forcing others to be responsible or whatever your hands would be self-tied and you would be a compliant slave. — praxis

To stop someone from assaulting another is not a matter of "forcing someone to be responsible". What kind of mental gymnastics is that?

Recently Seymour Hersh gave an interview in which he shared inside information about the view of the Ukraine war from sources within US intelligence.



At 19:58 Hersh goes into their view of the war, and how it differed from what the newspapers were publishing.

If we are to believe Hersh's sources, it turns out the idea of the advance on Kiev being a binding operation and not an attempt at capturing and occupying Kiev - an idea that I have posited multiple times in this thread - wasn't so far-fetched after all. In fact, it might've been exactly what took place.

Hersh names the figure of 60,000 Ukrainian defenders. The Ukrainian General Staff gave as their estimate for Russian troops attacking Kiev around 21,000.
This is essentially what I was already suspecting, and probably the reason why the Ukrainian order of battle remains undisclosed to this day, since it implies a successful Russian diversion, rather than the heroic Ukrainian defense it was framed as by the media.


The whole interview goes much further. It puts a bomb under the entire western narrative, which could already be seen cracking.

As Hersh said himself about his report on Nord Stream: all he did was dissect the obvious. And the only reason obvious things aren't said out loud is because of deafening US propaganda basically gas lighting the entire western world.


Anyhow, this is the umpteenth crack in the story. Can't wait to see the apologetics.

I don't know of any definition of "liberal" that isn't essentially about equality of some kind. — frank

I don't know of any that is.

But that's besides the point.

Most societies seek some sort of medium between liberty and equality. That doesn't change anything about the pursuit of equality being anti-liberal in nature.

Pursuers of equality calling themselves liberal are deceiving themselves and others. It's as simple as that.

Affordable healthcare isn’t responsible? Regulations aren’t responsible? Etc. — praxis

No, you're not getting my meaning.

Forcing people to act in ways that you perceive as benefitting the common good has nothing to do with responsibility. Responsibility is taken (up voluntarily by the individual), not imposed (through governmental threat of violence).

Civil Rights means the government is divided against itself. One part tries to protect equal opportunity, equality under the law, etc. from the other part. — frank

Sure, and I'm not saying that all equality bad.

But the pursuit of equality is anti-liberal by definition, so it makes no sense that those who campaign for ever more equality should call themselves liberal.


Ironically, both these cases remind me of Orwellian double-speak.

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative. — Tzeentch

And that's anti-liberal? — frank

Naturally. Wherever man is free, there exists inequality. The only way to make people more equal is to make them less free. The more equal people are made, the less free they are.

Moreover, the way governments make people equal is through the use of force. The more equal people are to be made, the more far-reaching governmental powers will have to be, and the more extreme their measures.

The question that never seems to be asked is what happens to all that power accumulation at the top.

Liberty requires responsibility and modern liberalism pursues that responsibility. — praxis

As for the first part, maybe so.

However, I don't think pursuing responsibility is what "modern liberalism" does. It simply tries to force people into acting in ways it considers "responsible" - that is not liberal. That is authoritarian.

Equality always comes at the expense of liberty, so the pursuit of it is by definition anti-liberal.

What ideals are you talking about? — frank

It seems to me modern progressivism is best described as pursuing ideals of (what I consider) extreme equality, and anti-capitalism, probably with (some form of) marxism as the alternative.

So, suddenly, in one generation, progressives turned into their opposites because... (enter bogeyman) wokism! — Baden

Not really.

Wokism is just a more racially-oriented, extreme version of the same ideals progressives hold today, and those ideals are a reaction to actual liberalism. To call oneself an anti-liberal however doesn't look very good, so the modern progressives kept the tag "liberal" while pursuing ideals which are profoundly anti-liberal.

Woke is clearly progressive.

Nowhere did I claim that "woke" is an umbrella term for progressivism.

"Typical tactics", "I understand what you're trying to do", "poisoning the well" - get a grip, mate.

But conflating the mad fringes of wokeness with progressives in general as Tzeentch has tried to do... — Baden

Stop replying to me if you're not going to make an effort at understanding my position.

You call Putin a liar in one sentence and take his word in the next.


Odd how that whenever it suits your narrative we should trust his word, and whenever it doesn't suit your narrative, he's lying.

15 years of protest against NATO expansion > Not a genuine expression of worry, but a carefully crafted lie.

Some war-time rhetoric > Not nonsense narratives meant to influence the public, but a genuine expression of his intentions.


You have to be pretty deep down the propaganda rabbit hole not to see this.

Also, "woke" is not liberal. It's progressive, though I would sooner call it regressive since it has effectively worked to dial back the clock on the role of race in society some 50 years. Alas, "woke" believes the changes they propose would benefit society, thus progressive is the proper term.

'Liberal' is just the label it inherited from the last wave of progressives, which had some right to call themselves liberals. Woke is just wearing it like a wolf in sheep's clothing.

What can be considered "progressive" these days is a counter-movement to actual liberalism, and is basically its polar opposite. It's attempts at controlling speech and people's thoughts are eerily Orwellian, and authoritarian to the very core.

"You will recognize them by their fruit."


As I said,

When I start looking at their actual effects, these "spontaneous" movements for "the betterment of society" seem to me premeditated attempts at spreading division, probably for the betterment of less than altruistic political agendas. — Tzeentch

What we're seeing today is the angry, radical, self-loathing Malcolm X approach.

I wish there were more Martin Luther Kings around.

Woke promotes racial segregation. Need me to repeat it?

I think Mearsheimer argued that the Kremlin decided Crimea is important enough for a Russian power position to grab. Maybe that's just part of it. Anyway, never mind me, carry on. — jorndoe

In a nutshell, this is basically it. Crimea is the prize here, however the connection a lot of people don't make is that a Ukraine in NATO (or otherwise allied with 'the West') would put Crimea in a permanent state of vulnerability since its only connection to Russia proper is the Kerch bridge.

This is why Russia chose to invade Ukraine. The first thing it did during the invasion was establish a land bridge with Crimea.

Much of Russia's conduct in this war, including what we know about the peace negotiations that took place in March 2022 point towards the securing of Crimea being their main strategic goal, either through annexation of parts of Ukraine, or through a negotiated deal.

I think he wanted to squash Ukrainian prosperity and block its efforts to join the EU. I think he also wanted to use the war to shore up his grip on dictatorship. — frank

I don't think either of these explanations hold much water, and basically exemplify the inability that is prevalent in this thread to see the Russians as anything other than cartoon villains.

Yes, I'm not saying Adams promoted or intended to promote racial segregation, but that "woke" ideology implicitly promotes it.

Fixed.

The US bombed Nord Stream for the simple fact that it didn't want European opinions getting in the way of war, and the Europeans, especially Scholz, took it like a ...

Moreover, it implicitly promotes racial segregation, which Adams's comments are a clear indication of.

When I start looking at their actual effects, these "spontaneous" movements for "the betterment of society" seem to me premeditated attempts at spreading division, probably for the betterment of less than altruistic political agendas.

By the way, I can think of some that would like the US going all isolation and NATO closing up shop. Can't tell if that's what you're suggesting here; is it? — jorndoe

If European leaders are incapable of serving European interests, NATO is a threat to European security.

Hmm Are you deliberately skipping who's doing the warring here, ... — jorndoe

So you're just going to support the US efforts to stoke the fires?

The US is just waiting for Russia to exhaust itself. Putin seems happy to allow the event to tear a new butthole for Russia, so I guess the wait will be extended. — frank

What indication is there of this, and why would the Russians be pursuing a strategy like that?

This sounds like wishful thinking to me. The same kind that predicted the Russian economy collapsing, the Russian army disintegrating, the Russian government being ousted, etc.

You called it a good article, that's why I asked.

To me it smells of the kind of war rhetoric that must've been prevalent before World War I, but if anything I share your worry.

What do you think is good about it?

It talks about Europe as a "muscular geopolitical protagonist", Germany as having to reinvent itself to arm itself and Ukraine against aggression, etc. A lot of war trumpeting.


Not a word of Nord Stream 2.

The reality is, when the US bombed Nord Stream 2, a piece of major infrastructure critical to the German economy, all Scholz asked was how many tanks the US wanted him to send. He's an absolute tool.

As a European myself I find the Germans' servile attitude beyond shameful, and as indicative of the relationship between the US and Europe - one of vassalage. European political leaders are servants of the American agenda, not serving the European peoples.


The article represents what the US wants Europe to be, and it represents in essence why the US provoked conflict in Eastern Europe - to break ties between Russia and Europe, and to remilitarize Europe, so it can serve as a useful in ally in the looming geopolitical conflict between the US and China as a counterbalance to Russia.

The US isn't interested in peace (see the peace talks they blocked), nor is it interested in what the Europeans think of all this (see the bombing of Nord Stream).

It really wants the war in Ukraine to have set all this in motion, but it remains to be seen. The US narrative is losing ground all over the world, and that includes inside Europe.

A horrible and bloody internet "pariah-ship and contempt" is what the majority of anonymous users of this thread have to suffer from the minority of other anonymous users for advocating B. — neomac

Your idea of pariahship is having people engage with you in page-long discussions? :chin:

I'm sorry the forum isn't your personal echo chamber, I guess.

Also on the topic of Europeans.

Hersh's article implicated Norway in the Nord Stream 2 sabotage. Norway is the world's third largest exporter of gas.

I'll leave it up to the forum what to do with that information.

I think it's worth pointing out that while the US narrative is alive and well within NATO, NATO is standing more and more isolated internationally.

Recently the European Council on Foreign Affairs published this paper:

United West, Divided From the Rest: Global Public Opinion One Year Into Russia's War on Ukraine


The global shift towards multilaterality is well underway, and the Ukraine war really shows how estranged NATO has become from the rest of the world, with basically every major international player outside of NATO refusing to pick sides in the conflict.


My expectation is that NATO will see a brief surge in unity as a result of the the Ukraine war, however as the reality of this conflict becomes apparent - the US role in causing it and its lack of commitment to solving it - it might in fact flip the other way and be the last nail on the coffin for NATO.

Best thing to happen to Russia would be a disastrous, humiliating defeat ... — ssu

Anyway, I think authoritarian dictatorships are bad and they should go. — ssu

Hence the solution would be to give Ukraine the ample resources to make this one of those defeats that Russia has suffered before... — ssu

Sounds like you're on a warpath. Who should be next? China?

No, but really. You're sounding a little detached. Any idea how many lives your lovely plans would cost?

NATO's Biggest European Members Float Defense Pact with Ukraine

Possibly some important developments here.

With the UK, France and Germany seeking to encourage peace talks, more elaborate NATO intervention in Ukraine seems unlikely for the near future.

A lot hinges on the commitment of the European nations if things were to escalate in Ukraine. Prior to this, the war rhetoric suggested the Europeans would follow the American line without much question, but with happenings such as these it remains to be seen.

In my opinion, this should have come a lot sooner. The war could have likely been avoided altogether had the Europeans made clear to Washington that they would not back the US in a protracted conflict in Ukraine.

The question is whether they can keep their backs straight.


As for the proposals themselves, there are some odd implications:
- Apparently Kiev is the party that needs to be encouraged.

- The way the European leaders seek to encourage Ukraine is apparently by way of "stronger ties between Ukraine and NATO". Note, NATO membership is not mentioned - I wonder if that's intentional. You'd think some form of close security cooperation between NATO and Ukraine after the war would have been on the table since the very start, but apparently not?

- Stronger ties between NATO and Ukraine was what sparked this conflict in the first place, so it's counterintuitive that this would become part of a negotiated peace. However, perhaps with the territories Russia holds (and Crimea strategically more secure), NATO membership for Ukraine is less of an issue.

You might be surprised that the countries comprising the majority of the world's population (China, India, Brazil, Pakistan, among others) do not seem to believe in the one-sided image of this war that is so dominant in the western media.

So no, you're not the only person. Though, if you're been reading western newspapers I don't blame you for feeling that way.

Interesting take on various relevant subjects by a retired US Army Colonel.

Me personally, ↪Tzeentch...? — jorndoe

Yea, why not?

I think your view that the war in Ukraine doesn't represent genuine Russian security concerns is the prevailing view in the West.

The worry I have with that view is that it seems to ignore the risk of escalation, because Russian threats of escalation are seen as a bluff by Putin.

My view is that this war does in some ways represent genuine Russian security concerns and that the risk of (nuclear) escalation is not trivial.

So my question is, should we continue to push Russia to escalate until eventually we get to the point they can no longer back up their 'bluffs'?

And is there any escalation big enough that would convince you the Russians aren't bluffing?

Since I think your view is the prevailing one, by asking you I am trying to get a sense of how close we might be to the precipice.

In the same round, would Putin risk Russia over southeast Ukraine (perhaps by unleashing the nukes)...? — jorndoe

How close do we want to get in order to find an answer to that question?

Would the United States have used nuclear weapons over Cuba?

I don't know. I'm glad we never found out.

The doomsday clock is now closer to midnight than it was back then.

The UN isn't quite as inconsequential irrelevant insignificant as me. I don't know if anyone thinks they're a bunch of airheads, but here's a report from their assembly today (Feb 22, 2023) on the topic. The message is clear enough.

What's your (anyone's) take? — jorndoe

What I would be looking for are the voting patterns and statements of BRICS countries and nations that have expressed interest in becoming part of BRICS or the BRICS development bank (NBD), because I think these nations represent a growing dissatisfaction with the western 'world order' ran out of Washington, and seem increasingly interested in forming a formal economic and political coalition against it.

My general sense is that you don't seem to take the Russian perception of NATO as a security threat very seriously.

The assumption seems to be, if we just raise the costs for Russia, they will eventually back out of this war because they have no legitimate reason to be in it in the first place.

My question is, how far would this war need to escalate for you to reconsider that position?