Which is precisely why Canada has nothing to fear from the US, and is not seeking protection elsewhere.... — Olivier5

Exactly. Likewise for US/NATO-Ukraine/Georgia in 2008. The reasons for membership were not some imperialist threat from Russia. No one made that claim.

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US — Mikie

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above[/].
— Mikie

That’s why you are blaming also US/NATO for this war, right? — neomac

The US and NATO are primarily responsible for escalating this war, yes. Ultimately the decision was Putin's, and so I blame him for the war. Person A provoking someone doesn't mean person B has no choice but to slap A in the face. Still, we should be honest about the whole story, and not simply make up stories about why person B reacted.

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.
— Mikie

Taking a threat seriously means that one should not ignore the threat — neomac

Excuse me, but you're changing the words. You didn't say "threat," and neither did I. You said "Russian concerns." Your assertion is that "Russian concerns were taken seriously." They were not.

What were the Russian concerns? Again, they were made very clear after 2008. We can go over the long record again if you'd like, but I think it's fairly obvious. It was obvious to US diplomats, CIA directors, and allies that Russia believed Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership into NATO was an existential threat. Ditto weapons and military training, which were later concerns and likewise voiced consistently and strongly -- not just by Putin.

So, again, your claim is baseless. Russian concerns were not taken seriously.

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.
— Mikie

So what? I’m more interested in testing the rationality of our expectations not in what we find desirable or moral. If all you have to offer is a list of scores based on your moral compass or desiderata, you are not intellectually challenging to me. — neomac

What isn't intellectually challenging is playing games like this. You know very well that I didn't say "threats" above -- and neither did you. You also know very well that the above quotation is in response to the following:

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. — neomac

[Emphasis mine]

So it's very strange that suddenly you say you're not interested in what we find "desirable or moral." I'm not interested in it either, which was the point. It doesn't matter if we prefer democracy or authoritarianism -- as you stated. What matters are the actions. We should react the same, not according to what we "prefer" (again, your words).

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly? — Mikie

By the end of 2008 Putin was already on the path of centralising power (e.g. by fighting oligarchs since hist first presidency term) while signalling his geopolitical ambitions in his war against Chechnya and Georgia. This was already enough to alarm the West and the ex-soviet union countries (including Ukrainians who have a long history of nationalist tensions with Russia). That’s why NATO enlargement was welcomed by ex-Soviet republics and not the result of military occupation and annexation by NATO, you know. — neomac

Your history is very confused.

That's simply not the case. That wasn't the US's or NATO's position in 2008. I asked what was the Russian threat in 2008 -- because it was in April of 2008 that the Bucharest summit declared that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted to NATO. Claiming the war in Georgia was a threat, and thus a reason for membership of NATO, is anachronistic. The war in Georgia did not break out until August of 2008. So that claim is nonsense.

The actions in Chechnya was the threat? Problems there had been occurring for years, internal to Russia. There was also no mention of that at the 2008 summit. It was not considered a threat, and it was not a reason for NATO admitting Ukraine or Georgia in April of 2008. It's worth remembering that Putin was invited (and attended) that summit. Strange to invite someone who was considered such a threat.

There was no Russian threat in 2008, which is when this all began, in April of that year in Bucharest. You've provided two examples of why. One was never mentioned by NATO -- or anyone else. The other is absurd, having happened after the summit.

So I ask again: What was the Russian threat in 2008 that began all of this?

Additionally your myopic demands for evidence fails to take into account the initial assumption of my geopolitical reasoning: “You candidly admit that Putin’s perception of the threat was honestly felt (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s not justified) , but that’s pointless to the extent that all geopolitical agents (not only Russia) as geopolitical agent reason strategically. And strategic reasoning comprises threat perception, signalling and management , so if one must acknowledge that Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified).”. So US/NATO felt Putin and the rising of Russian revanchism honestly threatening, even if, ex hypothesis, it wasn’t justified. Period. — neomac

Your "reasoning" is, and has now repeatedly been shown to be, very faulty indeed.

It's quite true that if the US/NATO felt that Russian revanchism was threatening, that this should be taken seriously as well -- even if we believe it unjustified. But that was not the case. Neither the US, nor NATO, believed this was true in 2008. That's why it was never stated. It's why Putin was invited to the summit. It's also why you can provide no evidence of it, despite being asked multiple times. So yes, my demands for evidence are quite singular -- because I'm interested in facts, not your rather confused reasoning.

If you have evidence that the US and NATO felt Russia was threatening in April of 2008, when they pushed for Ukrainian and Georgian membership, then provide it.

Or you could actually read the reasons given in the summit. It's online for free. In case you're unwilling to do so, I'll quote a part for you:

NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations. We welcome the democratic reforms in Ukraine and Georgia and look forward to free and fair parliamentary elections in Georgia in May. MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership. Today we make clear that we support these countries’ applications for MAP. Therefore we will now begin a period of intensive engagement with both at a high political level to address the questions still outstanding pertaining to their MAP applications. We have asked Foreign Ministers to make a first assessment of progress at their December 2008 meeting. Foreign Ministers have the authority to decide on the MAP applications of Ukraine and Georgia.

-- From the NATO website.

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. — Mikie

You are missing the fact that Biden froze the procurement of lethal weapons by the end of 2021 (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/appeals-ukraine-biden-admin-holds-back-additional-military-aid-kyiv-di-rcna8421) which were a more serious threat for Putin’s war machine than military training, defensive weapons and NATO promises. — neomac

Sorry, but you simply declaring that one thing is more threatening than another is not interesting. Ask the Russians if they felt it was threatening. It is their opinion that matters, not yours. And they've been quite clear, for over decade.

This distinction between "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" is kind of ridiculous. Everything the US has ever done, accordion to them, is "defensive." When we invade Iraq, we're "defending" Iraq. So that's already a sign of repeating propaganda. But think about it for a minute: what do you think "defensive" weapons are? They're all completely non-lethal? So machine guns are for "defense," therefore they can't kill? Are the FGM-148 Javelins simply "defensive"? Because those have been supplied as well. They certainly seem lethal to me. They're called "anti-tank missiles."

Furthermore, "lethal weapons" had already been deployed in Ukraine prior to December. Russia troops had already begun mobilizing at this point as well.

And again: NATO/US military support to Ukraine was meant as a deterrent (however weak) — neomac

Again, more propaganda. Everything that NATO/US does is "defensive" and meant merely as "deterrents." Right. Unfortunately, the Russians see it quite differently. They view anti-tank missiles and military drills with NATO -- including Operation Sea Breeze -- as a threat.

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.
— Mikie

Again you are forgetting the issue of the lethal weapons. Not training, not NATO expansion, not defensive weapons, not the hawkish claims were the serious threat, otherwise Putin would have started his special operation much earlier. The serious military threat was the offensive weapon system provided to the Ukrainians against Putin’s expansionist ambitions. — neomac

See above. This "lethal weapons" and "defensive weapons" distinction is really absurd. It's also not your decision to decide what was and wasn't a "serious military threat." I suppose Sea Breeze wasn't a "serious military threat" to Russia, in your view? Nonsense.

But even if we take your premises seriously, what exactly are you referring to by the "offensive weapon system"? You understand that Russia had mobilized before Biden delayed the $200 million supply, right?

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”
— Mikie

Retreat from what? — neomac

From NATO expansion.

Did Putin have evidence that Ukraine or NATO wanted to invade Russia? Or are we always talking about perceived strategic threats? — neomac

Suddenly evidence is important, and not "myopic"? Interesting.

Putin didn't have evidence, because that's not what Putin was claiming. Putin never claimed NATO wanted to "invade" Russia. Your failure to even minimally understand Russia's position here is telling.

You keep presenting facts according to the Russian perspective but you didn’t explain yet why the West should act according to Putin’s way of framing the issue and related demands (NATO membership, no military training, no weapons for Ukraine) while letting Ukraine fall prey to Russia. How is that right? — neomac

I've not once suggested that we let Ukraine "fall prey to Russia." I support US helping Ukrainians defend their country.

If Russia did something wrong in invading Ukraine according to your moral compass, what do you think it’s sensible to do about it? — neomac

Encourage and facilitate peace negotiations. The most immediate action would be a ceasefire.

So here we stand:
You are blaming also US/NATO for this war in Ukraine
You do not ground your judgement based on geopolitical strategic concerns, only on your cute moral compass (honesty, impartiality, peace&lovefulness) — neomac

Maybe you're just incapable of having a rational discussion. But I'll repeat, yet again:

No, I'm not blaming the US and NATO for the war. The US and NATO were primarily responsible for escalating the war. That's a crucial difference. The blame for invasion is Putin's.

The second accusation is just pure irrationality, given that it was YOU who mentioned "preference," not me. As demonstrated above.

I never once mentioned "honesty, impartiality", or "lovefulness."

I have indeed mentioned peace. For good reason.

That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.
— Mikie

I’m responding only for my arguments. If you want to talk about “imperialism”, you better clarify what you mean by it in a way that is clear what you would take as an evidence for the concept to apply, because otherwise we are just quibbling over a terminological issue. See here: “Imperialism is the state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas,[2][3] often through employing hard power (economic and military power), but also soft power (cultural and diplomatic power).” — neomac

It would help if you quoted the entirety of my response:

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

There is no evidence that the was an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. The answer given is about Crimea as evidence. This has been addressed before as well.

I will just quote Mearsheimer, an expert on these matters, who puts it more succinctly than I could:

The Conventional Wisdom

It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

In fact, there is significant evidence that Putin recognized Ukraine as an independent country. In his July 12, 2021, article about Russian-Ukrainian relations, which proponents of the conventional wisdom often point to as evidence of his imperial ambitions, he tells the Ukrainian people, “You want to establish a state of your own: you are welcome!” Regarding how Russia should treat Ukraine, he writes, “There is only one answer: with respect.” He concludes that lengthy article with the following words: “And what Ukraine will be—it is up to its citizens to decide.” It is hard to reconcile these statements with the claim that he wants to incorporate Ukraine within a greater Russia.

In that same July 12, 2021, article and again in an important speech he gave on February 21st of this year, Putin emphasized that Russia accepts “the new geopolitical reality that took shape after the dissolution of the USSR.” He reiterated that same point for a third time on February 24th, when he announced that Russia would invade Ukraine. In particular, he declared that “It is not our plan to occupy Ukrainian territory” and made it clear that he respected Ukrainian sovereignty, but only up to a point: “Russia cannot feel safe, develop, and exist while facing a permanent threat from the territory of today’s Ukraine.” In essence, Putin was not interested in making Ukraine a part of Russia; he was interested in making sure it did not become a “springboard“ for Western aggression against Russia, a subject I will say more about shortly.

One might argue that Putin was lying about his motives, that he was attempting to disguise his imperial ambitions. As it turns out, I have written a book about lying in international politics—Why Leaders Lie: The Truth about Lying in International Politics—and it is clear to me that Putin was not lying. For starters, one of my principal findings is that leaders do not lie much to each other; they lie more often to their own publics. Regarding Putin, whatever one thinks of him, he does not have a history of lying to other leaders. Although some assert that he frequently lies and cannot be trusted, there is little evidence of him lying to foreign audiences. Moreover, he has publicly spelled out his thinking about Ukraine on numerous occasions over the past two years and he has consistently emphasized that his principal concern is Ukraine’s relations with the West, especially NATO. He has never once hinted that he wants to make Ukraine part of Russia. If this behavior is all part of a giant deception campaign, it would be without precedent in recorded history.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

As Ramzy Mardini observed, another telling indicator of Putin’s limited aims is that there is no evidence Russia was preparing a puppet government for Ukraine, cultivating pro-Russian leaders in Kyiv, or pursuing any political measures that would make it possible to occupy the entire country and eventually integrate it into Russia.

To take this argument a step further, Putin and other Russian leaders surely understand from the Cold War that occupying counties in the age of nationalism is invariably a prescription for never-ending trouble. The Soviet experience in Afghanistan is a glaring example of this phenomenon, but more relevant for the issue at hand is Moscow’s relations with its allies in eastern Europe. The Soviet Union maintained a huge military presence in that region and was involved in the politics of almost every country located there. Those allies, however, were a frequent thorn in Moscow’s side. The Soviet Union put down a major insurrection in East Germany in 1953, and then invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to keep them in line. There was serious trouble in Poland in 1956, 1970, and again in 1980-1981. Although Polish authorities dealt with these events, they served as a reminder that intervention might be necessary. Albania, Romania, and Yugoslavia routinely caused Moscow trouble, but Soviet leaders tended to tolerate their misbehavior, because their location made them less important for deterring NATO.

Right. The aid to the Ukrainians makes the providers proxied elements. Though, I don't think the instigator meant to (ultimately) attack them instead (in this war anyway). Or maybe someone disagrees with this? — jorndoe

I really don't know what the second sentence means. Who is the "instigator," and who does "them" refer to?

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.
— Mikie

Note that in this scenario, the US would annex large parts of Canada, just as Putin is doing in Ukraine. Therefore, it would be a land grab, a manifestation of imperialism — Olivier5

And I suppose this reaction to China's involvement -- as inexcusable as it would be -- would somehow prove that the US had "imperial ambitions" there all along, despite there being no evidence of it prior to China's actions? Nonsense.

There's no evidence of US "imperialist ambitions" in Canada today. I don't think that's controversial.

If, hypothetically, starting in 2025, China were on the doorstep, supplying weapons, training thousands of troops, and continually pushing for Canadian membership in a "defensive alliance," despite years of US warnings about this being a "red line," and then a reaction occurred in 2031 where the US annexed parts of Canada -- I suppose this would somehow make the claims true today? Of course not.

Likewise, there were no claims of Russian "imperial ambitions" prior to 2014. After that, it of course became the official reason. With no mention of the prior six years' warnings from Russia, which were recognized even within the US:

William Burns, who is now the head of the CIA, but was the US ambassador to Moscow at the time of the Bucharest summit, wrote a memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that succinctly describes Russian thinking about this matter. In his words: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” NATO, he said, “would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze…It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

After the 2008 summit, Putin (reportedly enraged) had stated:

“if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.”

So yes, we can engage in revisionism if we'd like, and make up a story about how Putin was planning all along to take over the former territory of the Soviet Union, but almost no one was claiming that prior to 2014, which was as unsurprising an event as the US annexing parts of Canada in the above scenario. The difference: the US wouldn't wait six years to do so.

Your endless NATO caca arguments fail to account for the annexion of Crimea, Dombass and Kherson. This is the proof of imperial ambitions, which you have conveniently decided to ignore because it undermines your narrative... — Olivier5

On the contrary, I've repeatedly addressed them. I've now done so again, above. What you are ignoring/dismissing, conveniently, is what led to the takeover of Crimea. It wasn't imperialist ambitions.

True, we can believe Putin -- out of sheer caprice -- suddenly developed an urge to take Crimea, and make other projections on what the "real motives" were by speculating about the inner workings of his soul; or we can look at the facts: the actions and statements leading up to the event.

Starbucks Showdown in Boston Points to New Phase of Union Campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/24/business/economy/starbucks-union-campaign.html

We better hope they succeed.

I didn’t mean that you were blaming this war only on US/NATO. — neomac

“Only”? I blame Putin for the war. NATO was a reason given for invasion — one that was given for years, clearly and consistently. The conclusion? That he’s an imperialist bent on expanding Russia. That’s wrong. It’s wrong because there’s no evidence supporting it, no matter how often it’s repeated in the media or on this thread. If you think there is evidence, happy to discuss that.

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?
— Mikie

“Taking seriously” implies different things for different geopolitical actors depending on their strategy — neomac

Russian concerns about NATO enlargement have been taken seriously. That was your assertion, as seen above.

Therefore, this statement:

for Russia it meant that the West should provide security assurance and of course “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” are the opposite of security assurance for Putin. — neomac

Is meaningless. Russia was taking Russian concerns seriously, yes — that’s obvious.

For East-European countries (including Ukraine) it meant “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” because they needed security assurance from the US against the Russian revanchist threat! — neomac

So pushing for NATO membership by East European countries is an example of taking Russian concerns about NATO enlargement seriously?

“We take your concerns seriously by doing exactly what you’re concerned about.”

I’m not sure you’ve thought this through. You’re meandering into incoherence.

The point stands: the US and NATO did not take Russian concerns seriously — as was demonstrated above.

What I find particularly misleading in your claim is your “acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative” because the understatement is that since allies and some experts were against threatening and provoking Russia by “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” then those moves were illegitimate. But that’s a biased view precisely because one could still claim that other allies, other experts and other pentagon representatives were “pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc.,” with the intent not to provoke but to deter Russia! — neomac

What was acknowledged was that Russia considered this a threat. I said nothing about legitimacy — we can argue that. Many of these experts may even argue it themselves — for example, that NATO membership and providing weapons is indeed a threat to Russia, but that it’s worth doing anyway. That does in fact seem to be the case for many officials: "We don't care if you feel threatened, no one tells us what to do or who can join our alliance."

Either way, if pushing for NATO membership, supplying weapons and military training, etc., is “taking Russian concerns seriously,” as you asserted, then the assertion is indeed baseless and wrong. If their concerns were taken seriously, these actions wouldn’t have been taken.

"I take your concerns about poking this bear seriously, but I'm going to continue poking the bear." Is this an argument?

That’s why it’s a hopeless exercise to take any side to admit having been the first one to start the escalation. — neomac

What was the Russian threat in 2008, exactly?

Attempting to reduce all of this to “both sides have an opinion, so there’s really no way to tell” is a cop-out and is quite convenient, as it relieves you of having to learn about it.

If state A threatens state B in its proximity or state A invades state B, I could react differently depending on which state is democratic or authoritarian, because I prefer democracy over authoritarian regimes. — neomac

I prefer living in the US over living in Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq was still wrong.

Even if Russia were a democracy, the war is wrong. The US ignoring the Russian concerns and contributing to escalating the crisis is also wrong.

I find the reference to “President’s ‘real’ motive” highly misleading — neomac

So do I. I think to make claims about imperialism as the “real motive” without evidence, instead of looking at actions and statements, is very misleading indeed.

That’s why I keep an eye on what is done, not only on what is said — neomac

Sure — and escalating military training and weapons, turning Ukraine into a de facto NATO member, and doubling down on official NATO membership speaks volumes.

Therefore no, Biden administration’s real intentions do not necessarily match with their declared intentions. — neomac

"Real intentions"? Again, let's stop simply declaring the "real intentions" of the US or Putin, and look at the facts. From the summit communiqué in June 2021 to the Joint Statement in September 2021 to the statements by Blinken in December (after Russia made clear demands about NATO) -- the words were consistent. What about the actions? Well, not only weapons were provided, but extensive military training, including with NATO forces. Did Operation Sea Breeze not match the declared intentions?

We're all against Putin, but there's no sense in ignoring facts in favor of a contrived, unsupported media narrative.

Given Obama’s soft approach, Trump’s complicity, Biden administration’s hesitation — neomac

10 thousand trained troops a year (Obama), Trump supplying "defensive weapons," and Biden's long-held and continued hawkishness toward Russia (including what I've already gone over) -- hardly what you describe.

So finally the US/NATO king was naked, powerless! — neomac

Except that this is the exact opposite of the truth -- and Russia knew it. NATO's involvement was getting more and more serious, which is why they wrote letters to both NATO and the US demanding "1) Ukraine would not join NATO, 2) no offensive weapons would be stationed near Russia’s borders, and 3) NATO troops and equipment moved into eastern Europe since 1997 would be moved back to western Europe." This was in December of 2021. Blinken's response: "There is no change, there will be no change."

Also in December, Putin said: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?”

Based on the statements and actions by the US and NATO, it's quite clear they weren't "naked and powerless," nor did Russia see it that way.

So this is another baseless assertion.

When the world’s two great propaganda systems agree on some doctrine, it requires some intellectual effort to escape its shackles. One such doctrine is that the society created by Lenin and Trotsky and moulded further by Stalin and his successors has some relation to socialism in some meaningful or historically accurate sense of this concept. In fact, if there is a relation, it is the relation of contradiction.

It is clear enough why both major propaganda systems insist upon this fantasy. Since its origins, the Soviet State has attempted to harness the energies of its own population and oppressed people elsewhere in the service of the men who took advantage of the popular ferment in Russia in 1917 to seize State power. One major ideological weapon employed to this end has been the claim that the State managers are leading their own society and the world towards the socialist ideal; an impossibility, as any socialist — surely any serious Marxist — should have understood at once (many did), and a lie of mammoth proportions as history has revealed since the earliest days of the Bolshevik regime. The taskmasters have attempted to gain legitimacy and support by exploiting the aura of socialist ideals and the respect that is rightly accorded them, to conceal their own ritual practice as they destroyed every vestige of socialism.

As for the world’s second major propaganda system, association of socialism with the Soviet Union and its clients serves as a powerful ideological weapon to enforce conformity and obedience to the State capitalist institutions, to ensure that the necessity to rent oneself to the owners and managers of these institutions will be regarded as virtually a natural law, the only alternative to the ‘socialist’ dungeon.

The Soviet leadership thus portrays itself as socialist to protect its right to wield the club, and Western ideologists adopt the same pretense in order to forestall the threat of a more free and just society. This joint attack on socialism has been highly effective in undermining it in the modern period.

Figured it be refreshing to post something from someone who knows what their talking about.

It was argued earlier in the thread that the US and the UK should stay out of such efforts. (You?) — jorndoe

That was suggested by Olivier, and I stated that it may very well be correct.

Maybe talks could be held under the auspices of the EU? — jorndoe

Whatever works. Negotiations should be supported as strongly as we’re supporting Ukraine with weapons and training.

The last thing I would want is to be taken seriously by people who take seriously a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

, was the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan necessary?
— ssu

It was legit I think, — Olivier5

:chin:

You are convinced that the issue is whether or not Putin is lying b/c probably your line of reasoning looks something like this: since Putin honestly believed and repeatedly declared that US/NATO expansion was a threat (no matter if it really was) and US/NATO kept provoking Russia, then the US/NATO should be blamed for the beginning of this war. — neomac

No. I never said the US or NATO should be blamed for the war. Putin is to blame for the war. Why? Because it was his decision to invade Ukraine. I think it’s on par with the US invasion of Iraq.

And since the US/NATO is to be blamed for the beginning of the war, then it has to both take the negotiation initiative and make all the necessary concessions to restore Putin’s sense of security. — neomac

No.

I appreciate the attempt to reflect what I’ve said, but you’ve now made it clear you don’t understand my position. That itself is interesting, because I feel I’ve been quite clear. Nevertheless:

* I’m not blaming the US or NATO.
* I’m not saying the US needs to be the one to initiate negotiations and make concessions.
* I’m not making excuses for Russia.

By all means attack what I’m arguing. But make sure it indeed is what I’m arguing.

Now in geopolitics the endgame is neither peace nor war, it’s power — neomac

I never said otherwise.

Putin/Russia felt threatened by US/NATO (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified), then one must acknowledge that also US/NATO/Ukraine can feel threatened by Putin/Russia (even if, ex hypothesis, it’s unjustified). — neomac

Of course.

suggesting the idea that US/NATO didn’t take him seriously — neomac

I’m wrong to suggest this because:

the Russian concerns for NATO enlargement precede Putin and have been taken seriously — neomac

This is an assertion. Where’s the evidence? Pushing for NATO membership (up to and including the 2021 NATO summit), supplying weapons, conducting military drills, providing extensive training, etc., all why Russia was repeatedly calling it a red line (acknowledged by allies, experts, and our CIA as threatening and provocative) — is all that taking it seriously?

Picture if China was taking the same actions in Canada or Mexico, despite US warnings. Would we say they were taking those warnings seriously? After all, it could be argued, China didn’t annex Canada or incorporate it into a defensive alliance — it was only talking about it.

How would that scenario play out? Would we therefore EXCUSE the US for invading Canada? Of course not. But it shouldn’t come as a shock. Nor should we invent stories about how the US President’s “real” motive is to conquer all of the Western Hemisphere.

If US/NATO were warned for such a long time and Putin felt repeatedly provoked by US/NATO meddling in Ukraine, why did he wait so long to wage war against Ukraine? Or why didn’t he wait longer? — neomac

I wouldn’t have predicted an exact date, of course, but things had escalated in 2021 after Biden took over. The Biden administration made it quite clear what its intentions were. So from the statements by NATO in June of 2021, to the joint statement by the White House on September 1st, to statements made by Blinken in December ‘21 and January ‘22 — yes, there was a shift. It wasn’t out of the blue.

There are many other factors involved in the decision for the exact timing I’m sure.

So don’t waste your time convincing me that I’m a dumb partisan — neomac

I don’t recall doing so.

I understand it’s tiresome if you’ve been through this with several other people on this thread. But if you’re not interested in discussion — again, I repeat: don’t bother with me.

If you want anyone to take you seriously here, you'll need to take into consideration the historical facts and context, instead of trying to ignore or downplay them. — Tzeentch

Yes.

excuses — Olivier5

Not excuses.

If someone breaks into your house and destroys all the furniture and shoots anybody who resists, what is the point of wondering if they meant to wreak complete destruction or were only hoping to get a snack? — Paine

Only that it's important to understand why something is happening. I was hoping not to get into history, but it was raised and so I continued with it. Before that we were discussing possible solutions/negotiations. But it's all relevant.

So the political attitude I find more rational is trying to understand better what can be done by the government, and then push for my demands. — neomac

That's my interest as well.

No I don’t claim that Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training. I just claim that if Putin wanted to annex Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine, he would have done this with whatever pretext. — neomac

OK, fine. So you don't believe Putin. Understood. I don't blame anyone for that. I don't blame anyone for not believing American presidents when they say things either. I think we should be very skeptical.

The issue is whether or not it's true, and to weigh alternative explanations against the evidence. I've done so, and I'm of the opinion that Putin wasn't lying about Russia believing NATO involvement in Ukraine was a threat. Please note -- and this is very important -- that this doesn't mean it actually WAS a threat -- simply that he actually believed it. After saying so consistently for 14 years -- reiterated by others in the Russian government, by experts, by foreign leaders (including Angela Merkel), we should at least consider the possibility that he really believed it.

I believe Bin Laden truly believed what he was saying too, for that matter, about the US's support for Israel. Quite apart from (1) whether or not I agree with it, and (2) whether it justifies the actions.

I think this is the major difference between you and I. I see no evidence to support the assertions that Putin is trying to "make Russia great again," as someone had put it before, by conquering Ukraine and thus re-claiming what was lost after 1990. That's not the craziest explanation in the world, but in terms of evidence it's close to being on par with "They attacked us because they hate our freedom," and similar stories which could very well be true until you look at all the facts.

Better to go with Occam's razor here. And frankly, the US has been meddling in world affairs for eons. It should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention that it had a hand in this. There's also the strong possibility that our biases blind us. We all see this a lot in politics -- when I criticize Biden, I'm accused of supporting Trump. Or else that I'm giving cover to Trump supporters, etc. That is just as silly as saying I'm giving cover to Putin.

So the implicit win-win bargain for European countries to the US was roughly something like: you give me security and I’ll give you an integrated/peaceful market for your products and technology. — neomac

Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc. Sure. I don't doubt that they had their own reasons for joining. I'm in favor of people of any country making their own choices. But do you see how that's missing the point?

Yet that remains but a fraction of the story, one that also tends to lose sight of the victims on the ground and their assailants, and instead play right into the assailant's game. — jorndoe

This seems to be echoed by others. It's not unreasonable. But I don't see Manuel, or Isaak, or Tzeentch, or anyone else arguing in favor of Putin -- and besides, I think we're quite safe here talking about it. Putin's not listening to me.

Do you think that there was anything that could've been done diplomatically during the immediate moments leading up to the war to prevent it or do you think that Putin had already made up his mind at that point? — Mr Bee

A good question. I don't know, of course. If there were guarantees that Ukraine would not become a member of NATO, that the US (and others) would stop supplying them weapons and training, etc., I don't think there'd be any point whatsoever with invading. But of course that wasn't the situation. The US had made it clear that nothing was going to change regarding its stance on Ukraine. Blinken had said exactly that a few weeks before February 24th.

The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.
— Mikie

It is not just completely wrong, simplistic to the extreme, logically absurd and paranoid — Olivier5

What are you referring to, exactly? Is the 2008 summit "logically absurd"? Did that not happen? Did Blinken not say "nothing would change"? Did NATO not reiterate its 2008 stance in 2021? Did the White House not explicitly double down in its joint statement on September 1st? Had Putin not consistently stated that he viewed NATO expansion in Ukraine -- not to mention weapons and training -- to be a threat to Russia? (For 14 years, in fact.)

None of that is logically absurd, or paranoid, or wrong. It's just the facts. I can go through it again if you'd like.

Your feelings about Putin's "true motives" have been addressed as well. The weakness of evidence and, frankly, paranoia, lies in claims of Putin as imperialist. I've yet been shown evidence of this. I've been given a Time article and some statements made about Ukrainian history by Putin. The rest is completely unsupported speculation, repeated over and over again to the point of "common sense" by the media. But it's extremely weak. I'm open to hearing more, however.

It was only when the Ukraine crisis broke out in February 2014 that the United States and its allies suddenly began describing Putin as a dangerous leader with imperial ambitions and Russia as a serious military threat that had to be contained. What caused this shift? This new rhetoric was designed to serve one essential purpose: to enable the West to blame Putin for the outbreak of trouble in Ukraine. And now that the crisis has turned into a full-scale war, it is imperative to make sure he alone is blamed for this disastrous turn of events. This blame game explains why Putin is now widely portrayed as an imperialist here in the West, even though there is hardly any evidence to support that perspective. — Mearsheimer

akin to finding excuses to a criminal while he is still committing his crime. — Olivier5

This is simply your projection. It has nothing to do with me. I have not once excused or defended Putin. I never once excused or defended Bin Laden either, incidentally. What I try to do is understand why these actions are taking place. The hope is that it has some relevance for bringing the conflict to an end, particularly in one's own country -- in my case, the US.

Sometimes the reasons stated by leaders are obvious lies, sometimes they aren't. When they aren't, as in the case with Bin Laden, it still does not justify the actions.

Was China's show of force in Taiwan after Pelosi's visit excusable? I don't think so. But I don't see any reason to make up a story that it somehow wasn't her visit that triggered it simply because it would possibly give the appearance of blaming the United States (god forbid).

A closer metaphor would be: "I robbed the bank because they were considering getting better protection against robbery, so I had to rob it before they could get that in place". — Olivier5

Better protection from what? What was the threat of "robbery" in 2008?

"I poked the bear because the bear is vicious."
"How do you know the bear was vicious?"
"Because it attacked me after I poked it."

So much for "logically absurd."

Can you see now how absurd the NATO caca argument is? Or at least, can you understand that it looks absurd to me, from my perspective? — Olivier5

Yes, it is absurd if we've gotten it into our heads that Putin had (and has) "imperial ambitions." But there's no evidence -- or very flimsy evidence -- to support this. This is the point.

The Ukrainians don't think it is a proxy war. — Paine

True. The Vietnamese villagers didn't think it was a proxy war either. They just knew that their houses and crops were being burned and children were being killed.

I guess we should ignore geopolitical facts, then?

Beg your pardon, but that's a fatuous remark.

And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment. — Manuel

I hope they get it all back. But that's easy for me to say. Putin will not simply slink away quietly, and since it doesn't appear that the US has any interest in encouraging negotiations -- nor does Putin -- that more Ukrainians will have to die, over what's ultimately a stupid proxy war.

But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now. — Manuel

It really is sickening. There's no reason to believe he'll simply accept defeat, of course. That'd be like assuming Trump would concede an election.

Questions answered twice. — NOS4A2

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context? — Baden

Please elaborate. — Baden

I assume that adults have some semblance of right and wrong which they develop as they age. — NOS4A2

I'll repeat the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? — Baden

A fully developed morality is a set of principles of conduct and behavior. It develops as one ages. Yes. — NOS4A2

Here's the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context?
— Baden

Address the role of social, political and historical context re morality. Address its origin. — Baden

This isn’t an interview. — NOS4A2

:lol:

First, the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct of the war. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My central claim is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years. Specifically, I am talking about America’s obsession with bringing Ukraine into NATO and making it a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. The Biden administration was unwilling to eliminate that threat through diplomacy and indeed in 2021 recommitted the United States to bringing Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded by invading Ukraine on Feb. 24 of this year.

Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years. In the process, Ukraine, which has already suffered grievously, is going to experience even greater harm. In essence, the United States is helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path. Furthermore, there is a danger that the war will escalate, as NATO might get dragged into the fighting and nuclear weapons might be used. We are living in perilous times.

--

I think this sums it up concisely.

But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history? — Manuel

This is exactly it. The US government (not the people, the government and their foreign policy) and its hegemony just will not learn its lesson: not every country will bow to its will. You cannot simply go into a country, smash it up, say "Mission Accomplished," and then be shocked when you have to stay there for 20 years, and ISIS rises from the ashes. You cannot simply invade Vietnam and not expect a fierce reaction. You cannot interfere with China's claims on Taiwan and expect them to lie down. You cannot expect the Palestinians not to be resentful of continued support of Israeli occupation.

Somehow, when it comes to making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO -- which they did, and were clear about doing -- when there's a reaction we have to attribute that reaction to something other than our involvement. It's because of evil, or because they want to take over the world, or because they hate us for our freedom, etc.

So I keep getting in your face, closer and closer -- until finally react by punching me. You weren't justified to punch me -- there were alternatives; but it shouldn't have been a shock to me that you did, given my behavior.

In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs."

Does this excuse him from robbing the bank? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. Nor does it mean we have to come up with theories about the internal workings of his soul, and the "true" motives for robbing the bank.

Lots of people (and governments) cover up their crimes with lies they tell themselves and others. But sometimes an atrocity (like 9/11) is done simply for the reasons stated. That doesn't mean they're good reasons. It doesn't mean it justifies the actions.

So what are the "real" motives? Why isn't the stated motive stupid and depraved enough? Why postulate things (with less support) unnecessarily?

All this amounts to believing some of Putin's account about some of his motivations. It's not going anywhere close to overwhelming. In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

No, what's weak is simply projecting motives to someone you dislike. I dislike Putin too; I also disliked Bin Laden. The latter's reasons for attacking the US I think should be taken seriously -- I believe his stated motives were true. By no means does it justify what was done, but there's little reason to doubt those were the reasons in the mind of someone like Bin Laden. I suppose we could just say "They hate us for our freedom," or that Bin Laden was just insane...OK, that's an answer too. But we don't take that seriously, do we?

Putin was pretty clear about what was happening:

Putin made numerous public statements during this period that left no doubt that he viewed NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat. Speaking to the Defense Ministry Board on December 21, 2021, he stated: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?” Two months later at a press conference on February 22, 2022, just days before the war started, Putin said: “We are categorically opposed to Ukraine joining NATO because this poses a threat to us, and we have arguments to support this. I have repeatedly spoken about it in this hall.” He then made it clear that he recognized that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The United States and its allies, he said, “continue to pump the current Kiev authorities full of modern types of weapons.” He went on to say that if this was not stopped, Moscow “would be left with an ‘anti-Russia’ armed to the teeth. This is totally unacceptable.”

Putin’s logic should make perfect sense to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe Doctrine, which stipulates that no distant great power is allowed to place any of its military forces in the Western Hemisphere.

The onus is on those who have an alternative explanation. That it was just the sudden capricious act of an evil lunatic; that it was a long-planned action of an imperialist -- etc. The evidence really just does not support this. It's extremely weak. Despite being almost "common sense" to so many.

I think Putin's own statements are true, yet they do not justify what was done. Just as the US's backing of Israel didn't justify 9/11, despite those actually being Bin Laden's reasons.

--

I wish the US would eventually learn that not every country will simply passively accept anything they do. We didn't learn it in Vietnam, or in Iraq. We haven't learned from Israel. Next we will be testing China. Should anyone be surprised by the future actions of China if they continue to be provoked? I don't think so.

I don't think the US war in Afghanistan was right -- I condemned it. But was anyone surprised by the fact that there was a reaction to 9/11? No, of course not.

Because if you do not believe or cannot say clearly that Putin is a criminal, then there's a possibility that you may be an accomplice of his crimes, or a supporter. — Olivier5

I actually agree with this. I myself have tried -- maybe failed -- to communicate that. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.

It’s like me saying: I can enjoy pizza and still recognise the awful amount of calories it contains. — neomac

OK, I guess so -- sure.

In other words, there might be a strong link between a regime of human rights under a certain government and the awful foreign policy of that government which is undeniably hard to swallow once you realise it. — neomac

They may exist simultaneously, yes. Here in the US, for example, we're a wealthy country and enjoy many freedoms. We have public education, social security, freedom of speech, a fairly clean environment, and (from what I see) generally friendly, hard working, loyal people. Yet the foreign policy of our government (not to mention domestic policy) is often horrendous. That's not a condemnation of the people of the US. These things exist side-by-side.

Now I imagine somebody like you at that time saying: “I condemn the Confederates for this war, and I also condemn my federal government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of ‘picking a side’ is strange”. — neomac

We can get into the civil war another time if you like -- there's a lot to be said about it. But I see your point. However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics.

Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I'm against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc.

But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it?

This is simply trolling. — ssu

Not really. As I cited before:

To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

To say nothing of the fact that to conquer and incorporate all of Ukraine would have required far more troops and a much more aggressive strategy, which he had to know he couldn't do.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

Anyway -- I'm getting the hint that you're not up for this discussion. Fair enough.

The concept “anti-American” is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet.” That’s a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as “anti-Italian.” It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.

Chomsky -- after 9/11, when he was accused of being "anti-American" because he talked about the motivations behind the attack. Emphasis mine.

It's not atypical. I don't really blame people for it -- it's a tough thing to talk about factually when people are being killed.

Putin is a war criminal and tyrant and I have no desire to live in Russia. I don't support or defend him any more than I support or defend Israel's atrocities or the US's atrocities or Al Qaeda's. It's good to understand the history and the context.

Clearly not everyone can do so without emotion.

I just want to talk about this stuff. — NOS4A2

This isn’t an interview. — NOS4A2

:up:

Concerning me, why do I side with the West? For the simple reason that in the West avg people could enjoy a level of rights and material well-being that I find evidently preferable than what I and like-minded people could get in authoritarian regimes. — neomac

One can enjoy the hard-fought rights of the US — freedom of speech, for example — and still recognize the awful foreign policy of the government.

I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange.

Well you only say this because you’re a statist, blinded by statist indoctrination.

Statism. That’s the real enemy.

There— I just summed up this thread. And every one of his threads. One-trick pony.

It is interesting though to poke at this sentiment: Why must you be governed? — Baden

Eh, it’s the same nonsense dressed up in different clothes. Government bad. Individual good. Statism. Fruits of one’s labor. Taxes. :yawn:

All you have to do is look at the results: voting for and defending the likes of Donald Trump. The rest is just elaborate rationalizations.

Let it be a lesson to purveyors of voodoo economics.

In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.

I would suggest reading that speech -- not a Time article about the speech.

Regardless, it's odd that we should take what Putin says seriously in this case, and yet ignore his warnings about NATO.

In any case:

To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

In Mearsheimer's discourse, there are only two agents, the U.S. and Putin. — Paine

If you think this, then you're simply unfamiliar with Mearsheimer. This is false.

I reiterate: it's a stupid question.

"Governed," to the corporatist, is to be forever infantilized. Might as well be asking, "Why MUST you always need mommy around?"

That's the frame. And that's why it's stupid.

Whatever degree Putin was motivated to invade because of his perception of what NATO is doing does not confirm or deny other motivations. — Paine

Very true. But I’ve yet to see evidence of his imperial ambitions. Even with this invasion, the facts simply don’t align with it. We can discuss that if you’d like. But I’m not excluding it as a possibility— only that I’m unconvinced by that possibility. Another possibility is he's just an evil madman. I'm unconvinced by that too, incidentally -- although it may be true.

Saying that the Ukrainians should not be supported is a Putin talking point. — Paine

I think the Ukrainians should be supported.

Whatever game of Risk Mearsheimer is playing, it has nothing to do with the brutality being experienced by actual people. We are way past coulda, shoulda, woulda. — Paine

I’m not sure what this means. Why is he playing a game of Risk? I agree we’re past coulda woulda shoulda, but understanding the causes of this war is still relevant.

NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. — jorndoe

NATO expansion was seen as a threat to Russia, as they stated clearly for years. Whether it was “really” a threat isn’t relevant— they gave reasons, many times, and these reasons were no more ridiculous than the ones the US has claimed over the years.

The fact is that Russia had been saying, for years, that involvement in Ukraine, including the push for NATO membership, was a threat.

No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection. — jorndoe

Was there a major Russian threat from 2000 to 2008? What was that threat?

Keep up. (It's a long thread.) — jorndoe

I’m not interested in childish remarks like this. Keep it respectful and stick to arguments or don’t bother with me.

I’d suggest reviewing what I’ve written and engage with that. Merely asserting NATO was no threat isn’t an argument.

Hanke is a joke.

That above is one big imperialist speaking. — ssu

I don't see it. He's not telling the truth about the referenda, of course.

None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. But if you want to ignore the historical record on this and go with the mainstream Western narrative, I won't fault you for it. It could turn out true, I suppose. The evidence speaks against it currently.

Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored.
— Mikie
On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. — ssu

They were repeatedly ignored. The US and NATO continued on the same path they started in 2008, reiterating their stance multiple times, and deploying weapons and training in Ukraine.

Cuba never launched missiles into the US either. So by your logic, it was never a threat -- since it didn't happen.

even Germany was saying it won't happen. — ssu

When was Germany saying it won't happen? At the 2008 NATO summit? At the 2021 summit? In September of 2021, when the White House affirmed it would continue to support Ukraine's joining, and that "We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner"?

Or are you just referring to Scholz? Who apparently believes, as you do, that Putin is an imperialist?

Sorry, the facts remain the same even if Germany -- which nearly always bows to US power -- says that it was "not on the agenda." The documentary record says otherwise. Not to mention the weapons and training provided by the West to Ukraine, all in spite of consistent warnings from Russia.

The same is true of China, incidentally. There will eventually be a reaction if the US keeps pushing on Taiwan. Then I'm sure you'll retroactively accuse China of "imperialism," no?

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated.
— Mikie
NATO pushing? — ssu

Yes, as I've now demonstrated several times.

NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something. — ssu

You're just running out of things to say, apparently.

Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it. — ssu

Oh, ok. I guess that settles it.

It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. — ssu

:up: Cool.

NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. — ssu

There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. No one had accused Putin of imperial ambitions for 14 years -- and then suddenly that was the official story: imperialism.

Anything to deflect away from the fact that the US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership, starting in 2008, which was clearly and consistently said by Russian to be a threat -- for years. Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. Once there was finally a reaction, after 6 years, in Crimea, and a further 8 years in Ukraine, it's supposed to confirm the story. Sorry, but you're ignoring history and evidence.

Imagine during the Cuban Missile Crisis people saying that the US was overreacting, and that "it's delirious to think Russian involvement in Cuba is a threat to the US." Maybe they would have been right, but that's completely beside the point.

It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine.

Mearsheimer

But Reagan said “government is the problem.”

End of discussion.

Another fruitful thread with the sociopathic corporatist.

Anyone else up for a game?

I’m guessing, with no evidence, that she hangs on and continues for some time. Take a page out of Boris’ playbook.

Watching “The Patient” on Hulu. Interesting premise— first few episodes seemed promising, but I’m quickly losing interest. I’m currently on the episode 8.

Fair enough. To each his own!