Europe at War

[Karl Henning]

There is simply no American equivalent - and certainly not in Europe, where there's never been any "vassal state" - of this expansion:

Of course; it's only vapid whataboutery.

[drogulus]

     "Vassal" is an uninformative epithet. Is Germany a vassal in the Belarus sense? I would count Belarus a vassal because they are threatened by Russia into supporting a war on their own territory which they clearly want no part of. They are occupied by Russian troops who stage attacks on Ukraine. One understands this clearly. Luka is squirming publicly, talking out of both side of his mouth. He is for/against participating, saying things to reassure NATO he won't intervene while giving the weakest possible support for Putin.

     Germany is acting like a sovereign alliance partner trying to square the circle of energy requirements due to the colossal blunder it made to tie itself to Russian energy in a very unvassalish manner. A vassalized Germany wouldn't be allowed to make such a mistake. How is that not clear?

[Madiel]

Incorrect.  I posted a map and additional information previously.  You can read those posts, or not, whichever suits.  And you can deny the existence of the American Empire.

And the map is wrong. Which you obviously didn't read.

There are not 7 military bases in Australia. Some of the things counted are not bases, and some of the things counted are not military.

That, coupled with the map counting Puerto Rico and Guam as foreign countries, coupled with finding a more direct source than Al Jazeera, makes it pretty clear that the map is attempting to score political points rather than being an exercise in data.

Now sure, you took Hawaii. But it's not clear you count that in your claims.

[The new erato]

You have finally seen the light, Poju. Excellent news.

41

[LKB]

And the map is wrong. Which you obviously didn't read.

There are not 7 military bases in Australia. Some of the things counted are not bases, and some of the things counted are not military.

That, coupled with the map counting Puerto Rico and Guam as foreign countries, coupled with finding a more direct source than Al Jazeera, makes it pretty clear that the map is attempting to score political points rather than being an exercise in data.

Now sure, you took Hawaii. But it's not clear you count that in your claims.

Todd is presenting his " arguments " as a lawyer would. That being the case, it's worth noting that lawyers are hardly ever interested in objective truth; they're interested in winning.

[relm1]

This documentary is well worth watching.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/ukraine-life-under-russias-attack/

[milk]

I would just like to sum up the positions here to see them in their clearest form that each "side" can agree to.
The U.S. is/is not an empire. It is/is not an empire in decline. It is/is not one of the greatest empires in history. It is/isn't by far the dominant military force in the world.
Russia does/doesn't have rational security concerns from its perspective. Russia really does see NATO expansion as a threat regardless of whether it should or shouldn't.
Russia's war in the Ukraine was/wasn't precipitated by rational concerns.
Russia's war was/wasn't precipitated by the grandiose vision of an egomaniac.
The war could have been prevented had NATO/the U.S. been more reasonable/modest/willing to negotiate.
The U.S. must support the war against Russia in order to prevent Russia from further aggression that would threaten global security and U.S. interests.
Is there something else? What's being argued here?

[Todd]

The U.S. is/is not an empire. It is/is not an empire in decline. It is/is not one of the greatest empires in history. It is/isn't by far the dominant military force in the world.

"Is" to all.

Russia does/doesn't have rational security concerns from its perspective. Russia really does see NATO expansion as a threat regardless of whether it should or shouldn't.

"Does" to both.

Russia's war in the Ukraine was/wasn't precipitated by rational concerns.

Was.

Russia's war was/wasn't precipitated by the grandiose vision of an egomaniac.

Was, kinda.  Egomaniac may not be the best word.

The war could have been prevented had NATO/the U.S. been more reasonable/modest/willing to negotiate.

Yes, though this immediately devolves into a contrafactual argument on either side.

The U.S. must support the war against Russia in order to prevent Russia from further aggression that would threaten global security and U.S. interests.

There is no threat to US interests - which have never been defined in any event - and "global" security concerns do not exist.

[LKB]

I would just like to sum up the positions here to see them in their clearest form that each "side" can agree to.
The U.S. is/is not an empire. It is/is not an empire in decline. It is/is not one of the greatest empires in history. It is/isn't by far the dominant military force in the world.
Russia does/doesn't have rational security concerns from its perspective. Russia really does see NATO expansion as a threat regardless of whether it should or shouldn't.
Russia's war in the Ukraine was/wasn't precipitated by rational concerns.
Russia's war was/wasn't precipitated by the grandiose vision of an egomaniac.
The war could have been prevented had NATO/the U.S. been more reasonable/modest/willing to negotiate.
The U.S. must support the war against Russia in order to prevent Russia from further aggression that would threaten global security and U.S. interests.
Is there something else? What's being argued here?

Milk, l believe we haven't directly communicated before, so let me just say that l admire your efforts to understand the various points-of-view exhibited in this thread.

I think your post above is a good basic summing-up of the presented perspectives. Moreover, by doing so l suspect you've given everyone an opportunity to reset themselves emotionally, by virtue of being able to appreciate each perspective in isolation.

Thanks for that.

[drogulus]

     Putin launched a war against Ukraine. NATO didn't make him do it. No facts counter that.

     Since we're being facty, Ukraine wasn't on the short list for NATO membership. There is a reason, and here it is. Part of Ukraine has been occupied by Russia for years. That's a disqualification.

     What Putin feared was Ukraine gaining membership in the EU, strengthening ties to the West and boosting the economy and political stabilization. That's a threat to Putin, but it would be insane to claim it amounted to a justification for Russian aggression. I expect to hear the insane pipe up soon.

[Madiel]

I would just like to sum up the positions here to see them in their clearest form that each "side" can agree to.
The U.S. is/is not an empire. It is/is not an empire in decline. It is/is not one of the greatest empires in history. It is/isn't by far the dominant military force in the world.
Russia does/doesn't have rational security concerns from its perspective. Russia really does see NATO expansion as a threat regardless of whether it should or shouldn't.
Russia's war in the Ukraine was/wasn't precipitated by rational concerns.
Russia's war was/wasn't precipitated by the grandiose vision of an egomaniac.
The war could have been prevented had NATO/the U.S. been more reasonable/modest/willing to negotiate.
The U.S. must support the war against Russia in order to prevent Russia from further aggression that would threaten global security and U.S. interests.
Is there something else? What's being argued here?

Sorry but I can't buy into a number of your binary choices.

One of the problems here is that Todd keeps getting to drive the narrative (mostly by ignoring anything meaningful that anyone else says) and so other people waste (yes, waste) a lot of energy just negating whatever Todd says.

I don't believe that the USA is an "empire". But just having to repeatedly refute the empire language doesn't leave much room for discussing what the USA actually is... and then going on to discuss whether and how that's even relevant to the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

Plus some of your binaries demand a choice in cases where both answers can be right. Russia, or Putin in particular, can perceive NATO as a threat and he can be wrong about that perception as well. Russia can have some legitimate interests in Eastern Europe at the same time as Putin being a megalomaniac who dreams of a restored empire as a means of securing those interests.

But I will say one thing: the notion that NATO is merely a front for the USA is profoundly insulting to the other countries involved, and the ratification process for the entry of Finland and Sweden makes it pretty darn obvious that it's inaccurate. So both Putin and Todd (who does a great job at times of being a Putin apologist) have got that wrong.

[milk]

Milk, l believe we haven't directly communicated before, so let me just say that l admire your efforts to understand the various points-of-view exhibited in this thread.

I think your post above is a good basic summing-up of the presented perspectives. Moreover, by doing so l suspect you've given everyone an opportunity to reset themselves emotionally, by virtue of being able to appreciate each perspective in isolation.

Thanks for that.

Thank YOU!
I spend a bit of time watching by people talk about street epistemology and the psychology of knowing and belief. It's interesting. I think we do tend to dig in.

[Que]

I think Russia has had great difficulty in accepting its own decline as an empire.
That's not a threat by others as such, but can perceived and construed as such if you blame others for your own demise.
In hindsight we shouldn't be surprised that Russia at some point would try to reverse its decline of global power by the use of force. The real surprise is that Western powers were blind to the dangers and thought Russia could be appeased by economic cooperation and progres. Crimea should have been a watershed in Western policy on Russia, but wasn't.

Russia went rogue after the US invaded Iraq, despite Russia's objections and in violation of the decision mechanism in the Security Council and breaching international law. So, in a way the actions of the Bush administration were a trigger for much of what we are dealing with today.

[milk]

I think Russia has had great difficulty in accepting its own decline as an empire.
That's not a threat by others as such, but can perceived and construed as such if you blame others for your own demise.
In hindsight we shouldn't be surprised that Russia at some point would try to reverse its decline of global power by the use of force. The real surprise is that Western powers were blind to the dangers and thought Russia could be appeased by economic cooperation and progres. Crimea should have been a watershed in Western policy on Russia, but wasn't.

Russia went rogue after the US invaded Iraq, despite Russia's objections and in violation of the decision mechanism in the Security Council and breaching international law. So, in a way the actions of the Bush administration were a trigger for much of what we are dealing with today.

When you talk about the danger in thinking that "Russia could be appeased by economic cooperation and progress," to what exactly are you referring?

[Que]

When you talk about the danger in thinking that "Russia could be appeased by economic cooperation and progress," to what exactly are you referring?

That Russia would accept the loss of its "sphere of influence" in Eastern Europe as long as Russia would be fully integrated into the global and European economic system through mutually benifical economic cooperation. This was the cornerstone of Germany's Russia policy (Ostpolitik). The problem IMO was that Russia ultimately didn't develop into an modern open and democratic society. And Putin didn't trust the US anymore after Iraq... It went all downhill from there.

[milk]

That Russia would accept the loss of its "sphere of influence" in Eastern Europe as long as Russia would be fully integrated into the global and European economic system through mutually benifical economic cooperation. This was the cornerstone of Germany's Russia policy (Ostpolitik). The problem IMO was that Russia ultimately didn't develop into an modern open and democratic society. And Putin didn't trust the US anymore after Iraq... It went all downhill from there.

I thought I remembered this:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straightforward and trustworthy – I was able to get a sense of his soul." - W

[Todd]

The problem IMO was that Russia ultimately didn't develop into an modern open and democratic society. And Putin didn't trust the US anymore after Iraq... It went all downhill from there.

This is ahistorical.  NATO expansion has always been a problem for Russia.  Yeltsin objected about it directly to Clinton.  Russia was in a uniquely weakened position in the 90s and could do nothing about NATO expansion.  The Second Iraq War is not the primary or even a significant cause of distrust between Russia and the west, at least taken alone – one must factor in the US policy of regime change, which Biden supported in one of his "gaffes" earlier this year.  George W Bush openly called for both Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO in early 2008.  (Some people still favor expanding NATO to include Ukraine even today.)  Russia engaged in war with Georgia in the summer of 2008.  The Russo-Ukraine War began in 2014, and the full-scale invasion that began earlier this year was preceded by the "Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership" from September 2021.  While it is unlikely that a White House policy paper caused a war, it did signal and accompany an increased focus on Ukraine, which from a Russian standpoint is intolerable.  The warnings about the consequences of NATO expansion from the 90s first came to fruition in 2008, and rather than step back from aggressive expansion, western leaders upped the ante. 

The bit about Russia not developing into a modern, open, and democratic society exemplifies the crusader mentality in western foreign policy.  It is a uniquely western outlook that most of the rest of the world, including some democracies, do not adhere to.

I agree that the Russians have a difficult time accepting that they are in decline, just as Americans do, just as all imperial powers do.  Additionally, Europeans will have an increasingly difficult time accepting that eastern powers will hold increased sway in international and economic affairs.  Western domination of world affairs that began with the Age of Discovery is waning and will accelerate. 

[BasilValentine]

Can we please stop talking about threats to Russia and Russian interests? The interests allegedly threatened by countries joining NATO are not the national interests of Russia, but those of a small cadre of sociopaths and criminal autocrats who have no legitimate mandate to define national interests. It's absurd, delusional, and dangerous to pretend otherwise.
 

[Todd]

Can we please stop talking about threats to Russia and Russian interests? The interests allegedly threatened by countries joining NATO are not the national interests of Russia, but those of a small cadre of sociopaths and criminal autocrats who have no legitimate mandate to define national interests. It's absurd, delusional, and dangerous to pretend otherwise.

A rather absurd and delusional post, to be sure.

[MusicTurner]

Can we please stop talking about threats to Russia and Russian interests? The interests allegedly threatened by countries joining NATO are not the national interests of Russia, but those of a small cadre of sociopaths and criminal autocrats who have no legitimate mandate to define national interests. It's absurd, delusional, and dangerous to pretend otherwise.

True.