It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey. — ssu

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself.

1) In some posts you stress the fact that you are explaining not justifying (e.g. when you talk about Russia strategic interests), in other posts you seem condemning more than explaining (e.g. when you talk about the Palestinian genocide by Israel), in some others you seem to mix the two (e.g. when you talk about the US provocations and engage in blame talking). However you do it in ways that look to me somehow inconsistent. Here is a more concrete example: believing that the Ukrainian emancipation from Russian hegemony and the Ukrainian chumming up with the US was perceived as a “provocation” by Russians sounds to me as plausible as claiming that the European emancipation from the US hegemony (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) and chumming up with Russia (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) was perceived as a “provocation” by the US. If Russia’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over Ukraine, even brutally, because Russians felt provoked, then also the US’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over EU, even brutally, because the US felt provoked. And if US/Ukraine are to be blamed for provoking Russia and Russia’s consequent reaction, then also EU/Russia (even more so the anti-American or anti-Washington populist) are to be blamed for provoking the US and US’s consequent reaction. In other words, the symmetry in attributing “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” between Russia vs Ukraine and the US vs the EU is such that justification/condamnetion and blame can be equally distributed on both sides. So they can NOT ground the asymmetry you seem to believe in: namely, that the US’s reaction was less justifiable than the Russians’, and that the US/Ukraine are more to be blamed than European populism/Russia for this conflict. And since you mostly insist on the US hegemonic aspirations, US provocations against Russia, and European (especially populist) aspirations to emancipation from the US, my point is precisely that “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” can be symmetrically distributed so they do not explain the asymmetry of judgement. Other premises must be invoked to ground the asymmetry in judgement and blaming: something like the US provocations against Russia were significantly worse than Russia provocations against the US, or it was the US which started all of it, or the US is more evil than Russia, or I don’t care about Ukrainian emancipation as much as I care about European countries emancipation, and the like. Whatever premises ground your blame attribution and condemnation, I think they would deserve more focus than the US “hegemonic aspirations”, European “emancipation aspirations” and Western “provocations” against Russia. — neomac

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations.


Second, when geopolitical actors meddle in ways that are misleading and exploitative, I have no qualms with making moral statements about that.

Russia is clearly a wolf and widely perceived as a calculating geopolitical actor. The US on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore much more dangerous because people are ignorant to its true nature.


In neither case is there a double standard, since the two things being compared are simply not the same.

I support Ukrainian independence. What I do not support is incompetent nations like the EU, or exploitative nations like the US leading it down the prim rose path by feeding it fake promises of security.

2) In your “realist” explanations, you often brought up Mearsheimer’s arguments mostly to back up your own views, however I’m not sure how committed you are toward his arguments or where your views diverge from his (the fact that you think there is more strategy than incompetence per se doesn’t improve understanding over the strategy, nor does the idea that the blob hiddenly pushing Trump now is the same crew pushing Clinton/Bush). One related example is when you talk about “the blob”: indeed, one of Mearsheimer’s arguments is that American antagonism with Russia (and exporting democracy) was driven by neoliberal agenda while Mearsheimer’s ideas were more open to accepting a division of sphere of influence to avoid American overstretching and ally with a weaker/declining Russia to contain the rising China. So Trump’s approach seems very much in line with what Mearsheimer’s was suggesting. Yet the problem for the European emancipation from the US hegemony is that the change in strategy from neoliberal to Trump’s (and Mearsheimer’s) doesn’t look less worrisome, on the contrary it looks more worrisome because it’s openly humiliating and threatening European “allies” down to obedience to avoid nasty retaliations. And given Trump-Musk support for European far-right populism (like AfD), I’m not sure if European populism is still the right horse to bet on for European emancipation. So not only changing strategy by the US doesn’t look more promising for European emancipation neither European populism does. Your belief that that the same hidden crew of Washington is frustrating European emancipation aspirations or serving American imperialist aspirations or abandoning allies, before or under Trump’s administration, besides looking unverifiable to me, it doesn’t change the fact that the strategy looks pretty different, the prospects for the European emancipation look rather compromised now, in spite of (or maybe even thanks to) rising far-right populism, and the pattern of American abandoning allies can not be explained via neoliberal hypocrisies because they are grounded on Mearsheimer-style reasoning over foreign politics. — neomac

Yes, I think Mearsheimer is too quick to assume incompetence rather than deliberate strategy on the part of the US.

Considering the US is objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous, nation on earth, at the very least the idea of deliberate strategy should be exhausted before assuming incompetence. Currently, it remains conspicuously absent from the discussion.

Mearsheimer himself has argued that the influence of US presidents on foreign affairs is limited at best, and whether Trump is truly acting independently from 'the Blob' is unclear. I never said I had definitive thoughts about that.

About European 'emancipation' I have little to say. Europe is a lost cause. It will take decades for it to undo the damage of post-Cold War soft power US colonialism. But for the US to leave is obviously a prerequisite for things to get better.

Said that, here are two major differences between my and your views (among others): while you were warning and still keep warning about provoking Russia, Russia’s security concerns and the danger of servile pro-US European elites. I was warning about provoking the US, Russian aggressive imperialism (which goes way beyond than just not having Ukraine inside NATO) and the dangers of servile pro-Russian (and now tempted to turn pro-US) populist movements.
And while, prior to this conflict, the Europeans under the neoliberal agenda (the one you despise so much) grew prosperous and relatively safe, and had the best opportunity to develop a collective European military-industrial complex for their own security (but I suspect you are against a collective European military-industrial complex) without risking the kind of retaliations that a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US are capable of, as of now. You seem/seemed to believe that precisely this Ukrainian conflict was the best chance for Europe to emancipate itself from the US without risking Russia’s retaliations by making political choices that would have anyways led to a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US (and without a collective European military-industrial complex). — neomac

What's the US going to do? Leave? Conquer Greenland?

Let them. The sooner they show their true face, the better.
The principal threat is not an 'angry' US - the US is thousands of miles away across an ocean - but European 'Trans-Atlanticists' prostituting Europe to the American agenda.

I don't believe in the narrative that the Russians are coming for Berlin. The Ukraine war neither suggests they have the intention nor the capacity to threaten Europe.

Europe's population is roughly four times that of Russia. It's GDP is roughly ten times that of Russia.
Even if Europe organises its defense inefficiently on a country-by-country basis there ought to be no Russian threat.

The only reason Europe is vulnerable is because American interests have infiltrated its every institution like a Trojan horse, disallowing it from making sensible decisions.

It's Schrödinger's war machine. — boethius

:up: :lol:

Apologists for a genocidal government ran by a wanted war criminal 'revealing' the intellectual bankruptcy of others... I would laugh if it weren't so pathetic.

Ah yes, that beautiful realm of cognitive dissonance where Russia is militarily inept, on it's last legs, and simultaneously an existential threat to Europe.

The Russian economy and military are in shambles. It will take decades to recover! Also, they will be at the gates of Berlin in no time: we must militarize!

Oh, how the propaganda machine spins in mysterious ways.

Well said.

Ok, but what does any of that have to do with anything Jeff Sachs or I said?

By the way, all of the sidelining of the Europeans and the Ukrainians seems to tell us a thing or two about who was right about whether or not to assign these actors with much agency.

Jeffrey Sachs bringing to European ears something which, apparently, is not common knowledge here.

This man has 36 years of experience with the Soviet Union, Russia and Eastern Europe. He knows. He provides first-hand accounts of events, and direct quotes from high ranking US officials which will tell you exactly what Washington's role is and was in this conflict.

I know most of you will not be able to stomach what he says. The cognitive dissonance is too great. But whatever. People can hide from the truth until the cows come home, while more sensible people take over the wheel.

With Trump's election, whatever you may think of it, voices like those of Sachs are no longer systematically suppressed in favor of state propaganda.

Governments have proved themselves pretty much categorically incapable of being arbiters of what is true and what is false, and in fact conduct propaganda campaigns of their own to influence public opinion.

People need to start wisening up to the whole charade. There's simply no substitute for that. As long as they stay ignorant, it's not a question of whether they're being manipulated, but who they're being manipulated by.

It's quite unclear to me what points of mine you are responding to. Rather, it seems like you've picked snippets of things I've said, removed the context and assumed I was making definitive arguments.

Without providing quotes of what I said, I cannot gauge whether you're representing what I said properly. My initial impression is that for the most part you are not.


About Trump running against the neocon establishment, here are my thoughts:

On the surface, Trump certainly seems to be running against the neocon establishment. This is undeniable.

However, surface level appearances do not always tell the whole story, and I find it perfectly plausible that Trump is being used as the 'bull in a China shop' on which a bunch of necessary but unpopular actions can be blamed.

If Trump's actions suddenly start to make sense in a broader picture - in this case, that of America pivoting to Asia - it is only natural to hypothesize about goings-on beneath the surface.

The foreign policy blob is powerful, and they might be using Trump or even working together with him to bring the US on this new course.

I think many analysts, including Mearsheimer, are too quick to assume Washington is simply being dim-witted and incompetent, and never ask the question whether all of this display could be part of a strategy.


Lastly, I am not anti-American. I am anti-Washington.

As he said: "Putin cannot be trusted. He is a warcriminal and should be in jail for the rest of his life, if not executed."

That's the correct thinking. — ssu

It's a bit rich coming from the Washington elite.

But Trump is just a temporary phenomenon, and he is exactly what the Washington elite need to justify their 180 on Ukraine and pivot to Asia. "The US didn't want this, it was all mad man Trump!"

If I am correct that Washington is assuming Europe will slip its grasp, you understand that Washington will have a vested interest in using whatever influence it has left to make this war as drawn-out and destructive as possible, so as to hamstring both its rivals: Europe and Russia?

The Americans are making mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle? — neomac

Is that not exactly what they are doing? They've all but said that the Russians were right all along, while pinning the principal blame on Ukraine.

I never said the mea culpa had to be sincere or believable. Just that it had to happen in order for negotiations with the Russians to have any chance of success.

And despite being a precondition to peace, if the Europeans can be successfully goaded into continuing the conflict without the US, that's of course a massive new obstacle to peace. But that won't be Washington's problem after they've extricated themselves.

About half a year ago I remarked the following:

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch

And what do we see?

The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.

There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.


I've predicted this would happen.

Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.

Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.

Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.

Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.


Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.

Europe's next.

(Thought I'd post this in this thread as well, since it's quite relevant to Trump's election.)

About half a year ago I remarked the following:

As I said, the US is seeking to prepare its pivot to Asia by leaving long-lasting conflict as its parting gift to Europe. — Tzeentch

And what do we see?

The US is extricating itself from the Ukraine debacle, while Washington sycophants like NATO Secretary Mark Rutte are preaching that 'Europe must prepare for war!', even though public support for deeper involvement, or indeed any involvement at all, is and has been thin, and is thinning further still.

There is no greater threat to European security than for it to involve itself directly into a conflict with Russia while Uncle Sam is standing on the sideline harboring ulterior motives.


I've predicted this would happen.

Washington sensed that Europe would start to slip its grasp as its clique is being ousted under pressure of popular revolts (as we see happen all over Europe), which meant that Europe would go from obedient vassal to potential geopolitical rival.

Washington's Ukraine policy (starting from 2008 onward) has had as its purpose to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to sow the seeds for large-scale war, giving Washington a trump card to play which would deny both Europe and Russia from becoming 'laughing thirds' to any future US-China conflict.

Washington has successfully created a highly-volatile situation in Eastern Europe, and is now extricating itself. The last step is for Uncle Sam's 'Trans-Atlantic' clique (Rutte, Marcon, Scholz, etc.) to goad Europe into taking on primary responsibility in a conflict that bears a major risk of spiraling into a direct confrontation with Russia.

Worse still, Washington will soon be able to throw fuel on the fire to its heart's content, since it will no longer be party to the conflict.


Europe has and has had a massive blindspot for the type of games Washington likes to play, and it's going to end up like every other nation that naively jumped into bed with Uncle Sam: Vietnam, Afghanistan, Ukraine, etc.

Europe's next.

You all haven't got a leg to stand on.

Maybe you should all band together and try to produce something resembling an argument. :rofl:

The armchair calls the sofa comfy. — Paine

I'm not the one suggesting we stop the peace talks because 'Putin is like Hitler, and peace is appeasement'.


Pointing out your hypocrisy isn't an ad hominem. It shows how shallow your position, and that of others, actually is.

You're whinging about Trump cutting a deal, not realizing that a peace agreement would spare the lives of thousands - a sacrifice you yourself are apparently not prepared to make.

This argument makes no sense.

If Putin has designs on all of Europe, but after a 5th of Ukraine Russia is already on its last legs, then what are we worried about? At this rate it'll take several decades to even get through Ukraine.

But the Ukrainians are evidently fine on their own. Russia is on the verge of collapse and basically sending 80 year olds to the frontline - presumably without rifles and ammunition.

Etc. etc.

(Needless to say, I think this is a completely wrong view of what the battlefield currently looks like, but I doubt anything I say will get through to you.)

Also, the lack of enthousiasm to join the war is duly noted. But of course it's no problem if the Ukrainians keep fighting and having their sons sent back to them in bits and pieces. Somehow I predict you would be a lot less eager to prolong this war if you had to make similar sacrifices.

Ukraine, the state, was made aware of what would be the consequences of its choices from 2008 onward. It's not strictly a victim in this at all.

Of course, for Trump to say this is a bit rich. After all, it's the US that lured them into this course of action, and the US has presumably had a gigantic influence in Ukrainian affairs for it to get to this point.

What do you suggest? Letting the Ukrainians fight and die until they are defeated totally? Starting World War 3? I presume you are volunteering to be the first to enter the trenches? — Tzeentch

Historical precedent is fairly persuasive. — Vera Mont

So you're against peace.

After all, peace is appeasement, and Putin is Hitler.

What do you suggest? Letting the Ukrainians fight and die until they are defeated totally? Starting World War 3? I presume you are volunteering to be the first to enter the trenches?

I guess we won't be agreeing on much then.

One thing I would point out though, is that of course independent media has existed for a while, but the problem is they are denied large platforms - those are jealously guarded by the legacy media.

Algorithms suppress 'undesirable' search terms, governments lobby YouTube to strike unwelcome channels, and there have been many examples, in our own country even, of the government sending police officers to the doors of people who express 'undesirable' opinions in what is an act of blatant intimidation.

After a decade+ of Rutte, I am surprised you would still consider people who have lost all trust in government 'paranoid'.

Weren't you a few comments ago implying peace is appeasement and Putin is Hitler?

I get that you're being painfully confronted with the shallowness of that view or what little evidence there exists to support it, but no need to pin the blame on me.

So you've got nothing. Very well. Glad we got that out of the way.

Carry on.

And an additional question to all those arguing that peace is unacceptable: how many of your sons and daughters have you sent to Ukraine in order to stop the second coming of the mustachioed gentleman?

You are not being reasonable. — Amity

It's obviously you who is not being reasonable if you expect me to be satisfied with what little you have produced thus far.

Produce something better, or you may as well admit you've got nothing.

So you have no proof? Nothing remotely tangible? Just some vague allusions to WW2 and Hitler?

I think you are underestimating the role of our own governments in this.

The reason 'disinformation' has become a problem now, is because the (near-)monopoly held by governments and large coorporations on news distribution has been broken up by social media and the alternative news platforms they accommodate. In many ways, this flight towards alternate media can be explained exactly because governments failed to be reliable information brokers.

At the end of the day, the 'information war' only has losers. Both sides are dealing in propaganda, framing, mass manipulation, etc., which results in constituencies that are delusional, detached from reality, borderline brainwashed.

That is clearly not a sustainable situation, whoever 'wins' the information war.

Only cracking down on the social media side of things will just give the establishment free reign on the information landscape again.

Key here is the acknowledgement that it's not just 'the other side' who is guilty of engaging in blatant use of propaganda. It's not just the Russians and the Chinese. It's not just the Trumpsters. It's almost everybody.

As such, I think the primary 'cure' for this is for people to educate themselves on how they're being manipulated. If anything, all of this open friction is slowly waking people up to how the rotten machinery works.

Appeasing Putin is not the end of it. — Amity

What proof do you have of that?

Would you rather see the war continue?

A crisis for the elites, perhaps. But they can fry in their own grease for all I care.

After the US neocon establishment got dealt a heavy blow, the equally abject European establishment is next in line. This is a good thing - the excising of a tumor that has been allowed to fester for much too long.

There is no crisis.

I believe the US should not have inserted itself in European affairs, policed the world, and it is culpable for all of which you mention. Its cultural imperialism has rendered the EU into an overtaxed woke tyranny, a state of affairs which many seek to defend. For a while Europeans were too busy enjoying their freedoms to want to defend them. Who knows where you'd be if the Americans hadn't infiltrated the European psyche? I'm not sure. All I know is it needs to end, and that time might be now. — NOS4A2

Hear, hear!

Sometimes I toy with the idea that certain cultures just ought to be vanquished — BitconnectCarlos

:eyes:

Walking back statements is indicative of the type of diplomatic tightrope the Trump administration is walking, but the fact that they're walking it at all suggests to me they are being sincere.

The point was to signal to Russia that their two preconditions to negotiations (no NATO membership for Ukraine and no return of territory) were on the table. That some poor schmuck has to walk it back infront of US allies and deal with the fallout is par for the course.

However, the US wants out while every day Ukraine's negotiating position gets worse. This means Moscow will be expecting a very favorable deal.

They have signalled they want a permanent settlement to the conflict, where they don't risk the next administration making another U-turn and things ending up in the same situation. This amounts to the US having to admit strategic defeat (in deed, if not in word).

Whether the Russians can be satisfied while also giving the US a way to save face is the big question here. Since the US isn't paying the price of failure (it is Ukraine), it is easy for them to walk away.

It's up to skilled diplomats to somehow square this circle.

The one thing that makes me hopeful is Trump's somewhat more friendly tone towards the Russians. Ironically I think the Russians are sensitive to the prospect of normal relations with the West.

A lifting of the sanctions and a resumption of the NordStream project are ideas that are being floated, and these things may be enough to get a concession out of the Russians elsewhere which would make a deal possible.

I'm not trying to morally justify Russia's actions.

Boiling it down to 'aggression was rewarded' seems to miss the fact that there was a lengthy geopolitical power struggle. It would be more apt to say that political/soft power aggression was met with military/hard power aggression and a war ensued.

Is the use of soft power better than the use of hard power? Maybe so, but when the United States is the belligerent, soft power has the capability of altering the fate of nations (and is no longer so 'soft').

Maybe 'aggression was rewarded', but the US was also shown there is indeed a limit to how far other nations let themselves be pushed around. Considering the US is the most aggressive, destructive nation on the planet, perhaps that is some good with the bad?

Aggression has just been rewarded. — Benkei

I don't think aggression is the proper term for it. The Russians initiated the use of military force, but there had been a conflict brewing for a long time before that, during which they attempted numerous times to settle it diplomatically.

If you want to call that aggression that's fine, but in that case I would argue sometimes it is good for countries to draw a line in the sand in the face of a blatant disregard for their security interests.

In the end, all that really happened is that Russia made the West respect its red lines. Like I said, I don't think the proper term for that is 'rewarding aggression'.

The loss of Ukraine would have catastrophic consequences not just for Europe but for the entire world. — Benkei

I think it's quite the opposite.

The Americans making a mea culpa over the Ukraine debacle is a precondition to return to stability in Eastern Europe, which the Russians have been signaling is what they are interested in ever since the war began.

All of this nonsense about the Russians coming for Berlin and 'dictators sharpening their (nuclear) sabres' comes from desperate European politicians who, just like the neocons, are on the verge of being ousted together with their rotten cliques. They would love nothing more than a sense of crisis to help them cling to power.

It's almost as though the Americans are doing that thing they always do.

Whoever saw that coming?

Should I rename myself to Nostradamus?

So many questions.