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!

So this thread is just a guise for parroting Ayn Rand. Got it.

yet it looked like Chomsky was the dill from my vantage point! — invizzy

Then you either weren’t paying attention or you were clouded by prejudice towards Sam. I can’t see any way around it.

It’s as if you watched the Chomsky/William F Buckley conversation and came away believing Buckley looked good and Chomsky the “dill.” Come on.

It’s a stupid question. The better question is: why do we create governments?

Plenty of answers.

Why MUST you be governed? Why— WHY?

Don’t you want to be free from Big Brother? Yet you never choose freedom…you MUST go with being scrutinized, watched, collectivized. Why, why??

If only we could be more like John Galt.

Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. — ssu

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. After repeating now several times, if you’re not interested in looking at what was said at NATO summits, by the White House, by Blinken, and by actions like providing weapons and training, then I’m not sure how else to proceed.

“Large support” from whom? There’s large support for a two state solution in Israel, too — in the international community. But that won’t happen, because Israel and the US reject it. The same here — Germany and others have said some reasonable things, but capitulate to the US nearly every time.

If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful. — ssu

No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either.

izing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.
— Xtrix

If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. — ssu

There were no annexations in 2008, which is when this started — thanks to ridiculous moves by the Bush administration.

Of course Russian actions matter, but you’re mixing timelines. You denied Manuel’s assertion that there were repeated threats to Russia regarding NATO. That denial is unfounded.

Again I recommend reading the Bucharest summit transcripts.

Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. — ssu

:roll:

But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you. — ssu

Russia does not have a NATO veto, de facto or otherwise. It managed to delay membership of Georgia and Ukraine, but the US and NATO continued pushing through weapons, training, and the promise of future membership — as was literally reiterated all the way up to the 2021 summit.

That fact seems to evade you.

NATO threat to Russia was very real, and supported by the facts — should we choose to look at them. Or we can go with our feelings.

Banned @Yohan for extreme flaming.

Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine. — ssu

It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. Nevertheless, attempts kept being made, before and after Crimea and right up to Blinken’s remarks. The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.

Even up to the present year:

"They must understand that the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward"
“if our proposals are rejected ... we will make a decision on how to ensure our security in a reliable way,” -- Lavrov, January 2022

This was indeed rejected, and Russia invaded Ukraine a month later. I already mentioned Blinken's response.

There were other threats also besides NATO membership, which we can get into. Weapons, military training, etc.

You deny that this is the main reason. I think it is the main reason. There are other reasons which we can talk about. Believing that the main reason is to "make Russia great again" doesn't have much evidence supporting it, but I'm interested in whatever you have.

How can territorial annexations be less important? — ssu

Less important than what?

I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.
— Xtrix
You should not be biased. — ssu

Silly comment. We're all biased. When I say biased here, it's a matter of emphasis. I put more emphasis on the US, because it's my country. It also happens to have contributed significantly to the war.

Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity. — ssu

Which is why I've given facts -- like the 2008 NATO summit, the 2021 NATO summit, the public statements by the White House in September of 2021 and by Secretary of State Blinken in January 2022. All part of the public record, all show exactly what Manuel had mentioned (and you disputed): repeated warnings from Russia ignored; the US pushing for NATO membership and involvement with Ukraine for years.

You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot? — ssu

It didn't change the historical record.

Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia. — ssu

Yes, success in blocking it. What was being blocked?

And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

And reiterated in June of 2021, which I quoted.

And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. — ssu

Blinken— far more importantly — made the statements I cited THIS YEAR as well.

This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false.

It was never was about NATO membership in the first place — ssu

What is it about, then? I’ve heard a number of stories about being anti-democracy, having imperial ambitions, and being an evil madman. But I don’t find any of that compelling, based on the facts. Maybe it’s true — But I think after years of saying the same thing, consistently, it’s no surprise that something would eventually happen.

The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Like what?

Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu

I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes.

Anyway — you’re getting emotional, I think. Remember what I mentioned earlier: I’m not defending Putin, and I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.

Says the Trump-supporting corporatist. :yawn:

the exchange with Chomsky was cringeworthy. — I like sushi

Glad I wasn’t the only one who cringed. As a general fan of Harris, I was really disappointed. I was hopeful for a meaningful exchange, but Sam simply could not hear the answers Chomsky gave about American “intention” regarding Al Shifa.

Too bad.

Yes indeed. See above as well, from 2021 Summit.

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Read the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 2021. Doesn’t seem all that reassuring.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

Also:

“There is no change, there will be no change,” Blinken said when asked whether the formal response delivered to Moscow includes any alteration to NATO’s “open door policy,” which states that membership in the alliance is open to any European country that is in a position to “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

https://news.yahoo.com/there-will-be-no-change-us-bats-down-russian-demands-in-ukraine-crisis-210222078.html

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO. — ssu

It isn’t true. The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed:

The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

Amid a litany of such threats from Moscow, some NATO members are reluctant to inflame tensions at the three-day summit that begins Wednesday in Bucharest.

On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said admitting the two countries to NATO was "not a matter of whether, but when." However, he said the launch of the membership process might be delayed at this week's gathering.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership because of Russian objections— Putin, remember, was invited to that summit.

From NATO summit 2021:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

None of this supports your claim. The US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian membership long before Crimea. Manuel is right: the West ignored Russian warnings, over and over again.

In case it needs to be said yet again: this doesn’t justify Putin’s actions, and it doesn’t mean the US is the sole cause of the war. Let’s try to grow out of immediately jumping to those conclusions — and keep to the facts.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.
— Manuel
No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period.
But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea.

So the question could be asked in the other direction: Is it merely a proxy war? — Paine

And the answer is the same: of course not.

The danger of simplicity comes from only permitting a single narrative. — Paine

Yes.

I'm guessing a neutral but independent Crimea would be unacceptable to Putin. Any chance of that? — jorndoe

I would think it unlikely, but I’m no expert. It’s not a bad idea.

While it is obvious that the fighters cannot be decoupled from what supports them, treating Ukraine as merely a pawn in a geopolitical game is not going to lead to an end of the war. — Paine

Right, but of course it’s not that simple. As I mentioned earlier, there seemed to be a possible agreement in March/April until the UK and US discouraged the deal. On the other hand, if the US or UK suddenly wanted peace, it doesn’t mean Zelenskyy would automatically go for it.

I think a possible solution is simply for the US and UK to not interfere with negotiations. I’d prefer they encourage them, but that is neither probable nor (it has been argued) necessarily beneficial.

In any case — they’re not merely a pawn. But it’s hard to deny that this has become a proxy war.

Ukrainian neutrality and recognition of the Donbas/Crimea annexations by Ukraine in exchange for peace is a good compromise to you? — neomac

I think Ukraine neutrality is good. Recognition of Donbas, no. Recognition of Crimea -- maybe.

But it's not up to me. That's up to the people of Ukraine. No negotiation is going to be easy, and both sides will have to give something up. It cannot be that Russia simply gets everything it wants in exchange for peace, no. But then those aren't really negotiations.

I think I've only seen one poster here supporting Russia and saying Ukraine is part of Russia, though I have not seen him post here in a while. — Manuel

Then I stand corrected. I hadn't seen this either, but then it's a very long thread and I haven't always been great keeping up with it.

Everybody else that I've seen, takes it as a given, that this war is a crime. I mean, it's obvious, I can't believe it has to be said all the time. — Manuel

There's a lot of emotions at play, and that will skew the perceptions -- mine included. I do indeed have a tendency to view the United States government negatively. I think I'm right to do so and can support it, but it's still true that this is my basic orientation, given what I know about the US and its history.

Others, also correctly, will be hostile towards Russia because of its war crimes and the fact they started all this by invading, which cannot be overlooked.

But much like 9/11, this hatred will also skew the ability to understand the causes of the indefensible event. Anyone who talked about the US involvement in the 9/11 attacks were immediately condemned as siding with terrorists. People weren't ready to hear any of it.

All of this is fairly typical. I'm only slightly surprised because I expect a little more from this forum, especially after 355 pages. But otherwise it's not extraordinary.

Well, let's try. — ssu

Ok. Here's my position: I want the war to end, and I want to find out how best to help that happen. I don't have a lot of political power, but of what power I do have I'd like to put to the best use. Because I live in the United States, it will be mostly confined to its government. So I ask what role the US has played in this conflict, what its plan is, and how it can best bring the conflict to an end. This is what Olivier and I had been discussing previously, which ended in agreement.

I don't think there's anything particularly controversial about any of this. The controversy will lie in the details -- about NATO's expansion and its role in the war, about whether or not the US has helped or hindered peace talks, about the true threat of nuclear war, etc.

I'm not in favor of capitulating to bullies. I'm not in favor of appeasement. I am in favor of diplomacy and compromise. And in listening to all parties involved -- with a skeptical ear.

That's as clear as I can be at the moment.

And then they can take the line of Noam Chomsky that only Russians themselves ought to be critical about their country, Russia, and we ought to stick to being critical of only our own country / alliance. — ssu

That’s not Chomsky’s position, and it’s not my position. Nor is it anyone else’s position on this thread that I’ve seen.

The US government being the “bad guy all the time” is a strange accusation. We’re analyzing government actions — whether good or bad is a separate issue. Let’s look at what’s been done, what’s been claimed, and compare to the historical record. Some still claim that the invasion of Iraq was “good” and right, morally. That no WMDs were found is a fact either way.

But I’ll give you what you want:

- It’s a positive thing that the US is helping Ukraine defend itself. (What isn’t positive is their getting in the way of peace negotiations.)
- Putin’s actions are repugnant and I condemn them.

Funny that this needs repeating, since I — and everyone else — has been saying it all along.

What’s more striking is that one cannot question further without either being labeled a Putin supporter or US jingoist.

I think she's right. It takes a long time to build these things, so we should be using what is there for as long as possible.

Now, yes. Never say never though. — Olivier5

I don't. I'll keep trying to push things in that direction -- I just don't see the odds of success as probable. But as long as there's a chance, it's worth doing. It's a similar attitude I have towards a lot of issues.

You are being ridiculously sensitive, taking criticism of your position as criticism of yourself. — apokrisis

It wasn't critical of my position -- which you failed to grasp -- it was a strawman about a "neocon analysis" and then platitudes about bravely facing the world "as it is" by adopting "accurate assessments" (it's taken for granted that you have done so, I suppose).

So yes, I'll be sensitive about that in this case. I was careful not to add unnecessary, condescending commentary in my responses to you and didn't want to start down that path in this thread -- there's already been enough heat here. I figured it was best to point out that you were the one who initiated it.

Anyway -- this is boring. Be well.

Instead, the US could discreetly ask Turkey or the UN to do it. — Olivier5

True. That’d be fine with me. Odds are rather slim, unfortunately.