which I would disagree with. — ssu

You can disagree with it but that's the position Russia will take.

Chomsky:

As has been understood for a long time, decades in fact, for Ukraine to join NATO would be rather like Mexico joining a China-run military alliance, hosting joint maneuvers with the Chinese army and maintaining weapons aimed at Washington. To insist on Mexico’s sovereign right to do so would surpass idiocy (and, fortunately, no one brings this up). Washington’s insistence on Ukraine’s sovereign right to join NATO is even worse, since it sets up an insurmountable barrier to a peaceful resolution of a crisis that is already a shocking crime and will soon become much worse unless resolved — by the negotiations that Washington refuses to join.

That’s quite apart from the comical spectacle of the posturing about sovereignty by the world’s leader in brazen contempt for the doctrine, ridiculed all over the Global South though the U.S. and the West in general maintain their impressive discipline and take the posturing seriously, or at least pretend to do so.

...

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. — Chomsky

Also, as a consideration, blockades used to be an act of war but that was in the time when there wasn't really something like foreign direct investment, which meant the trade balance was incredibly important. Now amending the system in such a way that capital flows are no longer possible, does it give rise to blockade?

Note that this has been previously argued in other cases, like the US blockade of Cuba.

China is a fucking hellhole, which is why I try not to spend any of my money there. I guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). That's the West in its entirety not just the US of A. So aside from the complicity in this specific war due to the proxy war that was going on well before that, we're complicit in undermining the rule-based order we thought we could finally agree on, which means nobody but the West feels the need to condemn Russia.

I think that's telling and says something about how much of that condemnation is a narrative that is not universally shared.

And while as a human rights lawyer I do strongly believe in a rule-based international order, I'm afraid it's too much of a "western" construct to survive long term.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia? — ssu

They know how to find their way to Europe just fine. Where was takecarebnb for them? It is racism. But not surprising the majority is blind to it when our legacy is genocide and slavery which reverberates into today's world both in how we "look at the other", define ourselves as righteous and breach the rules we claim others should adhere to. I mean the US entered into 500 treaties with indigenuous native americans and broke them all and when Russia says "pay in rubles" it's "that's a breach of treaty!".

The US breaks the UN Charter when it suits them. They break their own laws when it suits them. This trust in "Western governments" as some force of good is just complete bullshit. All governments are shit and some are just less shit than others. Democracy and fairness are a constant struggle, requires an engaged populace and access to information. The latter is quickly deteriorating in the West and engagement with people who think differently is pretty much down the drain.

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance. Reap what you sow.

Speaking of breaking treaties. Guess who is militarising space due to changes in policies? You get two tries!

Another attempt at cheap point scoring and you suck at it. I suppose your arrogance precludes you from emphatising with people you talk to. I do care about what you think and what disturbs you. I just happen to think you've got a limited view of relevant circumstances are deeply emerged in the western holistic view of general benevolence and being on the right side of history etc.

Don't let your selective moral indignation disturb you then.

Meanwhile, genocide in Ethiopia. But the Western countries are falling over each other to be the first to voice paroxysomatic condemnations of Russia's behaviour because at least Ukrainians are white.

Why should this disturb me more than Yemen exactly? Or the Iraq war? Tugging at my moral convictions just shows how tribal your own convictions are.

Talking about narratives. "Kill the brutes" seems like an interesting series which I'm going to watch instead of post. ;-)

Thanks. Weirdly enough that didn't show on their own web page in the overview but does come up if you approach it by region/country here: https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/countries/russia/

In any case, point remains we should've gone further as was argued by several politicians early 2000 to include Russia in "the West". Instead we opted for geopolitical steps and the "encirclement" of Russia against promises made: https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html

What policy are you talking about? — ssu

See above. The bait and switch policy and flatly lying. Of course, the Russians should've gotten it in writing.

Sure, let's celebrate the huge barrier to entry to start new social media. :sad:

uhm... https://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

Aside from the fact that I said "association agreement" and not "PCA" and said "90s" and not "naughts", where exactly is it?

I think it's telling it's just the West saying all these things about Putin and Russia, What's ther rest of the world doing? South-America is shaking its head in disbelief because they smell the hypocritical bullshit from miles away. "Sovereignty, sovereignty" cried the USA. "When did that ever matter to you when pursuing regime change in our countries?". India doesn't commit to condemning the war other than reiterating platitudes it's committed to the UN charter.

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked.

We all know the answer don't we? This is to say, we have no moral standing to condemn Russia, we only have power and it's being exercised to cow the Russians into submission.

Oil-producing countries are not upping production. E.g., they are following through on the treaty obligations they have with Russia which is indirect support of Russia or at least not a condemnation.

The ease with which everybody here just parrots EU, NATO and US talking points is just amazing. The world doesn't revolve around Europe; pay attention to all these different views.

Being dependent on energy from a totalitarian regime like Putin's Russia, which will use that dependence as a way to imply pressure has been a wrong policy. That energy policy has to be changed. Germany should show resolve in this too. Hopefully it will change it's policies. — ssu

The EU is build around the idea of economic interdependence as a path to safety. So I disagree. Where we went wrong is not making serious progress in trying to increase economic interdependence with Russia in the 90s when circumstances were right. Instead the West collectively chose to keep treating them as enemies. That was the wrong policy.

And for those saying this wasn't possible: if we could enter into association agreements with Turkey, Moldova and Albania, we sure as hell could've done the same with another corrupt regime.

So - is Zelenskyy right? Should Russia be expelled from the UN Security Council? If a country is committing criminal acts, doesn't its presence on this council vitiate the chance of it being held responsible by that council? — Wayfarer

That leaves no members in the security council. So no.

Or he might become more menacing and march across Macedonia, link up with Orban, just keep heading west. — Punshhh

Because this is the rational and intelligent thing to do? I don't think these fears are founded. Putin threatening using nukes is to clarify NATO shouldn't get involved. What else would there be to it? What exactly did he say making you think he meant more?

And the maffia comparison is simply wrong. Has everybody forgot the support the US got in its war on terrorism from Russia? That doesn't fit in the capitalising on weakness part at all.

Remember this:

Putin's pro-American plan was not simply tactical. Putin's policies of support after September 11, including his agreement to an American military presence in Central Asia, represented a significant shift in Russian foreign policy. The potential for breakthrough - for a fundamentally new and improved relationship between Russia and the West - has never been greater. — Carnegie

Also, if we're so keen on peace and avoiding unnecessary deaths is important then one should be wondering why the US is refusing to join the negotiations.

What really pisses me off is how no European government calls it out, while we're the ones that run all the major risks, because of financial risks and energy dependence, right after the Ukrainians.

obesity — frank

How sizable is that in the USA nowadays? It's 14% here nowadays. When I was a teenager it was 8%.

I'm not necessarily agreeing with this theory, just saying that if you follow Andrew Levi's assessment then this is what you get.

I happen to think it's wrong. I think Putin and Russia in general are much more rational than people want to give them credit for because it doesn't fit the narrative of a "butcher" or "mob boss". Putin came from more or less nowhere and had held the reins of power in Russia for decades. He's not stupid and I see no good reason to replace the stated warnings by Russia over the past decades, eg. "don't fuck around with our sphere if influence" (I paraphrase) with convenient archetypes that prop up our narrative as "west good, Russia bad".

It doesn't fit his personal history and it doesn't fit official Russian policy for decades. Andrew Levi is just a convenient story to push UK policy.

Provided he is held in a weak position, with some stability, I would agree with you. — Punshhh

That contradicts what you shared though. The more secure and respected Putin feels the less trouble he should be.

This was not always the case. The Netherlands had an oversea empire in South Africa and Indonesia. They invented the apartheid system to rule it, primarily to avoid inter-racial sex and marriage. Their very long war against the independent-minded Acehnese became a war of extermination. Dutch troops wiped out entire villages and murdered civilians by the thousands. That's how they 'won'. — Olivier5

All true unfortunately. Even worse, apologising for our "police actions" at the end of the 40s is still not done because the feelings of veterans are more important than admitting to war crimes.

Cool. Appreciate it.

I admit to highlighting a particular view when I believe it broadens the context. I would do the same when talking about the Netherlands but unfortunately nobody here is interested in my little country.

Edit: just as examples here, we have plenty of institutional racism with nowadays zero political consequences for those responsible. Growing inequality. Deconstruction of the welfare state. Etc. That's all the center right politics. Then I have a ton to say about the left's inability to have a coherent alternative narrative. I don't believe in identity politics, still think it's about class struggle in the end where nowadays politics is coopted by corporations, making the struggle for socio-economic fairness that much harder.

It's relatively simple, where it concerns Ukraine Russia and USA have been fighting each other over Ukraine for decades. In my view both parties are guilty, and to a lesser extent European governments for being useful idiots in looking away. To get a fuller picture I don't need to highlight what Russia has done, plenty of people already do that, which for some reason a lot of people interpret as a defence for Putin. Quite obviously just because more people are to blame, doesn't make Putin blameless. Much like how a murderer cannot excuse his crimes by pointing to another murderer.

The reason why you think I don't have that attitude with respect to the USA is because too many people pretend it's a force for good. So there, to get a fuller picture again, I need to remind people what a shit country it is. From the way it treats its own citizens to its international acts.

At least the US is officially against attrocities, understands that violence towards civilians is simply counterproductive in a war and even will go as far as court martial it's own soldiers. — ssu

They will throw soldiers under the bus when a politician's ass needs to be saved. Other than that I find your optimism misplaced. Nagasaki and Hiroshima and the fire bombing of Tokyo ring a bell? How many were court martialed? Iraq? Afghanistan? Libya? Kosovo? Anything? Torture and renditions? What's Cheney doing nowadays anyway?

And the US' allies are complicit in going along with these farces.

So when the US officially states something we should believe it instead of calling it out for the lies they are but everything out of Putin’s mouth is a lie? How much cool aid did you drink?

Why don't you quote me where I defend him?

Andrew Levi co-led a UK diplomatic crisis response to Putin’s invasion of Georgia in 2008. I’m not sure what he’s done recently, but is occasionally interviewed in the media on the motives and ideology of Putin.
He arrived at his view of Putin during that mission and tried to warn the British government about Putin at the time and was largely ignored. — Punshhh

So he's never met Putin but feels qualified to make a psychological profile. Got it. Sorry man, I just can't appreciate a guy who tweets in 10 different language that there can be no peace with Russia unless it changes fundamentally. We could say the same thing about the US. There can't be peace in the world until the US changes fundamentally. And of course it is bullshit and nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy. Let's treat Russia like an enemy because I made my mind up that they are an enemy.

It's also neither here nor there. If we want peace, if we want to stop the killing now, we need to go through the Russia that is now and the way it is under Putin. And secretly of course the wish for "fundamental change" is for Russia to roll over and accept US hegemony and pretend it doesn't have any interests or rights other than those that exactly align with what the UK/US want them to be.

In my humble opinion, the man is obviously unfit to work as a diplomat.

You don't travel enough.

There's plenty of anti-Americanism going around and hypocrisy is one of the first thing spoken about. How can they complain about human rights abuses when they had their renditions, water boarding and torture, Abu Ghraib? How can they complain about aggression when we had aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan?

hmmm... I don't find much use in trying to project an archetype on Putin. It seems like psychologizing just for the sake of trying to categorise a person. It says more about the person doing that than Putin himself.

Never heard of Andrew Levi though and he seems to be an investor.

I have no clue why that passes for interesting to you.

I recall us having discussions about whether it would make a relevant difference voting for Trump or Biden. Just wondering, because I'm not taking US laws and politics in this area, has Biden done anything relevant yet?

Nice is-ought mistake there. Selective in your history too. And nowhere have I suggested everybody should be the same. And no I don't feel like expanding on this other than the obvious point we're the only animal who have started mass killing itself - not as an isolated incident but policy. The fact you think that's normal and go out of your way to defend its existence would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Note I got you to backtrack your implication that Russia has an implicit right to invade Ukraine, to: nobody really respects sovereignty. — frank

Another person who can't read. I never said the first part.

I answered it. When you figure out what I actually said as opposed to what you want me to say in a pathetic "gotcha" attempt, the answer will be automatically apparent.

If your country was invaded by Germany or France, would you think that complaining about it is hypocrisy? — Olivier5

This doesn't follow from what I said. Try again.

Fuck off frank. 1. Make an argument. 2. Stop making this personal. There's nothing wrong with my moral compass.

The day all countries respect sovereignty, it will be a great day. As long as they don't, complaining about it is just hypocrisy. Especially coming from an American citizen.

Respecting sovereignty also means not trying to influence internal politics, which the US and Russia have been trying to do for decades in Ukraine.

Most people here keep thinking the UN system of rules are relevant or that sovereignty is some fundamental right. It's quite clear this isn't the case based on what countries actually do. Except for the first gulf War and a humanitarian intervention by France in, I think, Cote d'Ivoire we have not seen any military conflict in accordance with UN rules in the past 30 years. And even that last one is debatable based on the rules.

And it also ignores any strategic considerations, which we have seen time and again is reason for every county in history to do what they do. But let's pretend that no longer exist so we can just complain about how evil the Russians are.

Lastly, that something is in a constitution doesn't make it right.

You just read what the Forum's official Putin troll has said here:

Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, after years of EU and NATO expansion and constant Western interference in Russia and neighboring countries like Ukraine.
— Apollodorus

In any case, Russia cannot logically be expected to accept the Black Sea being turned into a NATO lake (controlled by NATO states Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, and possibly Georgia).
— Apollodorus

And there would be a multitude of other references. Case closed. — ssu

Why do you disagree with this? I thought we already established the proxy war fought over the Ukraine since well before that? The strategic importance of Crimea and therefore the Black Sea seems obvious as well. Moscow being pincered by the baltic states and Ukraine in a sort of "C" around Belarus would be strategically worrying too.

That the US and NATO treat and have treated Russia as a de facto enemy for decades after the end of the cold War seems also obvious. Despite, I might add, support from Russia in most Western anti-terrorism ventures. So what makes this trolling or Putin worship?

Shall I find the Chomsky article that says all this more or less as well? Or is he a troll too?

A New York Times article recently suggests that Putin, being surrounded by "yes" men, had no idea the war would go this way. He thought Russian forces would (by and large) be welcomed with open arms. Do you all believe this? — Xtrix

I don't have a crystal ball so no clue really and I don't trust the news in normal times and actively distrust it in war times. If it's written by a US newspaper my working presumption is that it's a lie until I can find the same story in the Chinese owned state media.

I'd guess that Street and Benkei pretty much agree too (though they may have something to say about "criminal"), but their focus and priorities are different. — jamalrob

It's all that. My problem is the blindspot of the role of the US and NATO getting us here. Think of it as contributory negligence.

This is the correct way to proceed. I think the correct thing is to engage in discussion that is worth wile. If some have problems to see the real picture from their anti-Americanism or somehow feel that some facts seem for them to be too "pro-US" (starting from the fact that this war was indeed of Putin's making) or whatever, it's their problem.

Russia has likely far more political prisoners now that it had during the late Soviet era and the policies of Putin are making it a larger police state. His fear of "colour revolutions" in Russia won't make it easier. Things are now getting only worse there and the war will continue as Russia simply doesn't have today the ability for a new determined push Ukraine. It might take weeks before that happens. — ssu

It's funny how criticism and disagreement is immediately set aside as informed by ideology. That way you don't have to engage. Kissinger, Mearsheimer and Chomsky are anti-american now? Sorry but this is just a cop out for people incapable of dealing with the inconvenient truth geopolitics isn't that simple. Quite disappointing coming from you to be honest.

I also see exactly zero reason to applaud someone who purposefully states he's only here to share his opinion and not actual analysis and debate.

Well, at least it wasn't communism!

Unlike you, I make an effort to understand my interlocutor instead of picking stuff out of context to make some smug response. — Christoffer

Well that's patently false. You were fishing for one answer and one answer only, that people choose the side of the USA. And when they don't you cry they don't listen. This is of course total bullshit and it was you who wasn't capable of understanding the other side by shifting the goal posts just to get people to agree with your preconceived conclusions. And when you get called out for the shit posts those steps were, you cry about moderation. Of course, it isn't you, because you're so smart!

Lost interest in actually discussing this topic for real in here, it's too much of a Reddit shitstorm than anything of value. — Christoffer

I wish you would just do that but then I read another post.

And one of the moderators is one of the worst offenders of this thread's behavior. — Christoffer

You can mention me by name. Unlike you I don't think the world boils down to a popularity contest. "But who do you trust more?!"

I have lived in Lampertheim and worked in Strassbourg if you really need to know but it's totally besides the point where it comes to understanding France's democratic deficit. That only requires reading the news and dive a bit in its laws (le 49.3).

But you're not even capable of doing that, despite being French. Talk about nihilism. You don't even engage with the politics of the country where you're allowed to vote. Pathetic.

Be our guest: invent something better than global Putinistan. — Olivier5

Where it concerns France, just look to two countries north. It still has plenty of problems but it's already a lot better than France where it comes to democracy.