Europe at War

[Madiel]

Now, who's sounding uncomfortably close to Todd here?

Oh, I agree that on one level none of what we say here matters. But you took the unusual step of specifically saying yourself that you're just posting on a music forum. What Todd does is tell EVERYONE ELSE that they're just posting on a music forum.

Whereas I had suggested your opinion was important. And you corrected me.

[Herman]

Oh, I agree that on one level none of what we say here matters. But you took the unusual step of specifically saying yourself that you're just posting on a music forum. What Todd does is tell EVERYONE ELSE that they're just posting on a music forum.

Well, I did not know that. I generally don't read his posts.

[Madiel]

Well, I did not know that. I generally don't read his posts.

...you told me I sounded like Todd, but you didn't know that Todd said things like that because you generally don't read his posts...

Oooooookaaaayyyyy. I think we should wrap it up there.

[Fëanor]

Your statement merely illustrates the you and Putin have unwarranted resentment of the USA's well-earned financial and military power from which Europe has been probably the greatest beneficiary.

...  I recognize also that what you describe as "well-earned" means built on genocide, slavery, expansionary warfare, relentless exploitative capitalism in the wake of the Civil War right up through the Gilded Age, and then in the post-war era, on a militarized economy that even a five-star general publicly warned against.

Yes, I'm going to double-down on saying the US financial & military power are well-deserved. No country has an unblemished record and that's true of the USA, on the other hand the USA would have the position it has without inventing and sustaining its essential democracy and open, entrepreneurial economic system ... and let's face it, it has a large geographic territory, internal resources, and population. 

Nations in eastern Europe and now Finland and Sweden have been admitted to NATO on their own requests as result of their legitimate fear of the imperialist expansionism of Tsarist Russia, the USSR, and now Russia under Putin. ...

...
The US and NATO most certainly provoked Russia.  George W Bush publicly suggested that both Georgia and Ukraine join NATO, something even Robert Gates said was going too far.  Obama saw the dangers in Bush's policies and slow-walked various advocated policies, including arming Ukraine, a direct provocation.  Trump and now Biden have both flooded Ukraine with weapons.  One of the more ironic twists of geopolitics in the last decade is how fully Bush policies have been embraced by all manner of people who otherwise claim to despise Bush.

If Georgia and Ukraine had joined NATO they wouldn't have the problems they have today.  If the impression ensued that the USA/NATO "provoked" Russian that would have been in Putin's head:  too effing bad. The real fact is the Obama meant to cut Putin and Russia a break which, in retrospect at least, it they didn't deserve.

Russia's activities in 2014 and since are entirely due to Putin's romantic vision of a renewal of these historic tendencies.

This explicitly requires adherence to the great man theory of history and grossly oversimplifies Russian power structures.  Putin is very powerful, but he does not have the degree of control often misrepresented in the western corporate press, and he does not make decisions independent of actions in the world.

Well  in fact that's the point:  in Putin's mind he is a "great man".  I don't believe it's just a fabrication of the "western corporate press" that Putin pulls all the strings in Russia.  (Don't forget he's a guy who has his enemies murdered.)

[Todd]

Yes, I'm going to double-down on saying the US financial & military power are well-deserved.

Well-earned or well-deserved?  They mean different things.

No country has an unblemished record and that's true of the USA, on the other hand the USA would have the position it has without inventing and sustaining its essential democracy and open, entrepreneurial economic system ...

This is a romanticized, whitewashed version of US history and also mischaracterizes the current US economy.

If Georgia and Ukraine had joined NATO they wouldn't have the problems they have today.

Again, the idea that George W Bush policies are now embraced is peculiar.  At least you openly embrace neocon policies, so I know you are a neocon.

Your assertion entirely misses a larger and much more important point: US foreign policy is about US security and US interests.  Neither are served by expansion of NATO to include non-Atlantic countries, and most certainly not Georgia and Ukraine.  The Russo-Ukrainian War demonstrates a fundamental policy failure.  It has heightened risks to US security.  And the US does not have to be involved at all.  All US engagement is by choice, not necessity, with only two exceptions since 1865.

No one on this forum has been able to define US interests in Ukraine.  Can you define those interests?

Well  in fact that's the point:  in Putin's mind he is a "great man".

You do not and cannot know what's in Putin's mind.  You are repeating pro-war propaganda.  And you clearly believe in the great man theory of history.  That is as useful as knowing you are a neocon.

[Todd]

Air Force unveils B-21 Raider, America's newest nuclear stealth bomber, after years of secrecy

On a broadly related topic, Northrup Grumman, in partnership with the USAF, had a press day to officially reveal the B-21.  The story has been covered in all major global news outlets.  Viewers of US television news were treated to standard, laudatory short-form stories touting the capabilities of the aircraft, the strength it provides the US, and most important of all, the lead it maintains over China and Russia.  It all has a Deal of the Century vibe about it.  Too bad it can't be used in the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, amiright?

[Madiel]

So... the US has no interests in Ukraine, AND a conflict in Ukraine is a risk to US security.

Goddamn that's a good trick @Todd.

PS I told you about US interests in Ukraine at least 6 months ago. You just didn't like the answer. When you claim no-one has defined the interests, what you really mean is that no-one has defined them to your satisfaction. But you are so, so rarely satisfied about anything.

[Fëanor]

Folks, my apology for feeding the troll.  That Todd is a troll is the most likely reason for his comments since it's harm to believe he is sincere.

If Georgia and Ukraine had joined NATO they wouldn't have the problems they have today.

Again, the idea that George W Bush policies are now embraced is peculiar.  At least you openly embrace neocon policies, so I know you are a neocon.

I'm not saying that backing off NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine was a mistake at the time.  But is was as much friendly, conciliatory gesture as it was prudence.

Your assertion entirely misses a larger and much more important point: US foreign policy is about US security and US interests.  Neither are served by expansion of NATO to include non-Atlantic countries, and most certainly not Georgia and Ukraine.  The Russo-Ukrainian War demonstrates a fundamental policy failure.  It has heightened risks to US security.  And the US does not have to be involved at all.  All US engagement is by choice, not necessity, with only two exceptions since 1865.

No one on this forum has been able to define US interests in Ukraine.  Can you define those interests?

Are you confused?  You say the USA acts in its own security & interest, (most countries do).  If the USA has no security interest in Ukraine, what is it doing there now?

Don't be confused by the "Atlantic" in NATO's name:  it only pertains to the founding treaty's name, not its purpose which was the mutual defense of all participating countries against external threats, principally the Soviet Union.

What we are seeing today is déjà vu all over again:  an attempted replay under Putin of Soviet hegemonism.  The security concerns of the USA, the largest and wealthiest NATO member, are no different today than they were in 1949.

[Todd]

But is was as much friendly, conciliatory gesture as it was prudence.

There was nothing prudent about it.

Are you confused?  You say the USA acts in its own security & interest, (most countries do).  If the USA has no security interest in Ukraine, what is it doing there now?

I am not confused.  First, I asked if you could define US interests in Ukraine.  No one on this forum has been able to do so.  Amorphous claims about generalized conceptions of security do not suffice.  Second, the US is not there; the US is providing financial and military aid.  That is, the US in engaged in a proxy war.  People blanched at that notion months ago, and some might still.  You at least acknowledge that the US is engaged in the war.  Third, the US is engaged in a dangerous policy whereby it seeks to expand its global hegemony to Ukraine, and it is following a policy to explicitly weaken Russia.  That is, the US seeks to expand its empire.  (People will of course deny the US is an empire, some will confuse colonialism and imperialism, and so forth, but at the very least the explicit goal is to expand the reach and scope of American hard power.)  There may be short- and medium-term benefits for certain US economic interests (eg, defense contractors) and institutional interests (eg, the DOD), but that is not necessarily the same as the national interest.  The US is overextending itself strategically and increasing risks of becoming embroiled in war that does not impact material US economic interests, US territorial integrity, the territorial integrity of allies, or US liberty.

Again, I ask you what American interests are at stake.  If you choose to not answer, that's fine.

Don't be confused by the "Atlantic" in NATO's name:  it only pertains to the founding treaty's name, not its purpose which was the mutual defense of all participating countries against external threats, principally the Soviet Union.

I am not confused about NATO at all.  I have pointed out before, and will point out again now, that NATO is a vehicle for expanding US hard power around the world.  NATO states openly and publicly on its website that its missions are global in nature, and it has formed "partnerships" with countries including Columbia and Mongolia. 

What we are seeing today is déjà vu all over again:  an attempted replay under Putin of Soviet hegemonism.  The security concerns of the USA, the largest and wealthiest NATO member, are no different today than they were in 1949.

Assertions that Putin is attempting to reconstitute a Tsarist or Soviet empire are pro-war propaganda talking points.  Russia lacks the power to do so, even absent US military deployments in Europe. 

Assertions that US interests are no different than they were in 1949 assumes that the expansion of the military-industrial complex in the wake of the 1947 National Security Act actually reflected US interests at the time.  Critics at the time understood that was not the case.  It is not the case now, either.  It is worth reposting a quote from Robert Taft from 1949 regarding NATO:

But today we have quietly adopted a tendency to interfere in the affairs of other nations, to assume that we are a kind of demigod or Santa Claus to solve the problems of the world, and that attitude is more and more likely to involve us in disputes where our liberty is not in fact concerned.  It is easy to slip into an attitude of imperialism where war becomes an instrument of public policy rather than its last resort.

[Fëanor]

I am not confused.  First, I asked if you could define US interests in Ukraine.  No one on this forum has been able to do so.  Amorphous claims about generalized conceptions of security do not suffice.  Second, the US is not there; the US is providing financial and military aid.  That is, the US in engaged in a proxy war.  People blanched at that notion months ago, and some might still.  You at least acknowledge that the US is engaged in the war.  Third, the US is engaged in a dangerous policy whereby it seeks to expand its global hegemony to Ukraine, and it is following a policy to explicitly weaken Russia. ...

Again, I ask you what American interests are at stake.  If you choose to not answer, that's fine.

Well, I suggest you are confused as the politer alternative to suggesting you are cynical and disingenuous Russophile.

I am asserting that the USA's interest -- and NATO's interest -- is collective security as it was in 1949.  You are rejecting this out-of-hand, so we must disagree.  By the same token, you say the Ukraine is a USA-Russia proxy war.  That implies that the USA alone is the prime mover in the conflict and dismisses the fact that all of NATO, (at least), is acting for collective security.   

Assertions that Putin is attempting to reconstitute a Tsarist or Soviet empire are pro-war propaganda talking points.  Russia lacks the power to do so, even absent US military deployments in Europe. 

Yes, that's what makes Putin a delusional romanticist. Were it not for it's nukes Russia would be only a 2nd rank energy provider.

Wow, my head is spinning.    So I'm to believe that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, destruction of its infrastructure, war crimes against its civilians is solely the protect it from US hegemonist ambitions.  Give me an effing break. 

[Florestan]

my head is spinning.

Which is entirely your choice. You could, and would better, stop right here, right now. 

[drogulus]

    For a more nuanced view of the Russia-NATO thingy, this:

     Russia is picking a fight over NATO because it looks better than the real issue, which is former Soviet states joining Europe economically, culturally and politically. By the time a country gets to the point of considering NATO membership it has already left the Russian orbit.

[Fëanor]

For a more nuanced view of the Russia-NATO thingy, this:

     Russia is picking a fight over NATO because it looks better than the real issue, which is former Soviet states joining Europe economically, culturally and politically. By the time a country gets to the point of considering NATO membership it has already left the Russian orbit.

What is pathetic is that if Putin had played his cards right Russia could likely have been an EU member today -- maybe even a NATO member.

But in his resentment of the collapse of the Soviet Union's empire, (no one's fault but its own), and delusional ambition to reconstitute it, he choose a different path.  Russia citizens, not to mention Ukrainians, are much the worse off for it.

[Fëanor]

Which is entirely your choice. You could, and would better, stop right here, right now. 

Thank you, Florestan:  a wise suggestion.

[Todd]

Well, I suggest you are confused as the politer alternative to suggesting you are cynical and disingenuous Russophile.

Cynical, yes; Russophile, no. 

I am asserting that the USA's interest -- and NATO's interest -- is collective security as it was in 1949.  You are rejecting this out-of-hand, so we must disagree.

Yes, we disagree.

By the same token, you say the Ukraine is a USA-Russia proxy war.  That implies that the USA alone is the prime mover in the conflict and dismisses the fact that all of NATO, (at least), is acting for collective security.

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia.  NATO means nothing without US power.  Nothing.  In addition, the US has provided far more financial, military, and intelligence support to Ukraine than any other country.  You can look up data at the Kiel Institute, which serves as the basis for Wikipedia's article.  You can even download the Kiel Institute's Excel datasets. 

In terms of so-called collective security, one can see how hollow that assertion is on its face.  Germany's bold promises to significantly boost defense spending right away have given way to statements that it will not hit the 2% of GDP military expenditure target until 2025.  I predict it will take longer - if it ever actually meets the agreed upon target. 

European security depends on US power by design. 

   

Yes, that's what makes Putin a delusional romanticist. Were it not for it's nukes Russia would be only a 2nd rank energy provider.

Putin is a rational actor, not a romanticist.

Russia is a first rank energy producer.  That is a verifiable fact based on production levels.  Disliking Russia is one thing, but ignoring facts quite another.

Wow, my head is spinning.    So I'm to believe that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, destruction of its infrastructure, war crimes against its civilians is solely the protect it from US hegemonist ambitions.  Give me an effing break. 

You can believe whatever you wish.  A lot of people prefer a simplistic good guy/bad guy story and so opt to believe that.

What is pathetic is that if Putin had played his cards right Russia could likely have been an EU member today -- maybe even a NATO member.

This is romanticism of a particularly dangerous and myopic sort. 

[Madiel]

Huh. Apparently, trolling is considered a US security issue. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/pro-putin-trolls-supporting-the-ukraine-invasion-cant-stop-screwing-up-1392075/amp/

[Karl Henning]

Russia is picking a fight over NATO because it looks better than the real issue, which is former Soviet states joining Europe economically, culturally and politically.

And Huggy Bear swallowed it.

[Fëanor]

Russia is a first rank energy producer.  That is a verifiable fact based on production levels.  Disliking Russia is one thing, but ignoring facts quite another.
 

I'll concede that point.  Russia is the no.3 producer behind No.2 Saudi Arabia and well behind No.1 USA.  (Canada is No.4.)

https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/oil-and-gas-investing/top-oil-producing-countries/

[Todd]

I'll concede that point.  Russia is the no.3 producer behind Saudi Arabia and well behind the USA.  (Canada is no. 4)

Your source is too narrowly focused.  The US Energy Information Administration provides different figures and is more expansive.  In quadrillion BTUs, the top five energy producers are listed below.  Energy is more than oil. 

China - 123.8
US - 101.4
Russia - 64.3
Saudi Arabia - 27.9
Canada - 23.5

[Madiel]

Oh dear God. Even when someone concedes a point, he has to disagree.

Don't bother, @Fëanor.