Europe at War

[71 dB]

Chomsky's view of what caused the war in case anyone is interested:
https://youtu.be/b8Ji_IzKFHo

My problem with Chomsky is not what he says, but how he says it. It is his voice that is very difficult to tolerate. He has got the voice of a 200 years old man and looking him speak makes me fear any word will strain too much energy out of his body and he will collapse on the floor dead. 

[milk]

My problem with Chomsky is not what he says, but how he says it. It is his voice that is very difficult to tolerate. He has got the voice of a 200 years old man and looking him speak makes me fear any word will strain too much energy out of his body and he will collapse on the floor dead. 

I've always disliked his arrogant manner of speaking. How many times does he use phrases like, "everybody knows..." But he is worth listening to and taking seriously.

[71 dB]

I've always disliked his arrogant manner of speaking. How many times does he use phrases like, "everybody knows..." But he is worth listening to and taking seriously.

His "everybody knows..." means  "everybody SHOULD know..." and is to be interpreted as frustration over the fact that most people are completely ignorant about most things.

[MusicTurner]

So I watched it. This is one of the more moderate ones.

As said, no expressed sympathy with Ukraine. He downplays the direct Russian invasions in 2014, calls them a non-notable conflict, and doesn't even acknowledge the invasion of - and obtained control with - Donbass, as a frozen, created conflict, back then.

He also doesn't acknowledge that there can be a conflict between the Kremlin's estimates of its own influential power and realities, and sees this as an example of the failure of Western analysis capabilities; yet, this is one of the key points made by many, such a Galeotti for example, since the authoritarian system with the same leader for decades has a strong tendency to produce false reports about its own successes - to facilitate corruption,and avoid local punishment. Everything points to the Kremlin really thinking that Ukraine could be taken in a week.

It is refreshing though that, at the end, he calls the invasion an aggression and Russia a dictatorship. However, it's notable that the interview is abruptly cut after that, maybe it was longer.

[Todd]

As said, no expressed sympathy with Ukraine.

So?

It is refreshing though that, at the end, he calls the invasion an aggression and Russia a dictatorship.

He has since the invasion started.

[MusicTurner]

His "everybody knows..." means  "everybody SHOULD know..." and is to be interpreted as frustration over the fact that most people are completely ignorant about most things.

At 25:00 here, from July 2022,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJ6T4uZGRTw

he says that Sweden and Finland are eager to join NATO, because the powers in those countries want to sell more weapons; this will allegedly mean that when becoming USA's vassals via NATO, those countries will 'dismantle their social democracies'. Also, he is being very selective as regards quotations and signals from Western politicians. He also ignores a discussion of a stronger EU in the future; for example, a recent governmental leaked report here in DK says that a Trump presidency no.2, or simply a likely stronger future representation of the thinking he represents, will pose a security threat, and therefore urges for more EU collaboration, possibly beyond NATO.

[Todd]

He also ignores a discussion of a stronger EU in the future; for example, a recent governmental leaked report here in DK says that a Trump presidency no.2, or simply a likely stronger future representation of the thinking he represents, will pose a security threat, and therefore urges for more EU collaboration, possibly beyond NATO.

The EU does not have an effective security organization and explicitly relies on NATO for military missions.  Changing that will require European powers to come up with a practical alternative for centralized command, something Europeans have failed to do for all of European history. 

[drogulus]

     Russia's Gazprom says it won't reopen Nord Stream gas pipeline to Europe as planned

The move comes as Europe is scrambling to confront acute energy disruptions that threaten to leave the continent short of the fuel it needs when temperatures drop. The shutdown extension is expected to send gas prices up sharply when markets open on Monday. If the pipeline stays offline permanently — and Europe has a particularly cold winter — the economic consequences for Europe and the world would be considerable.

     This is good, very good. It no longer matters who decides if Russian gas will be bought or sold. There's nothing to decide. If plans for the energy future don't include Russia for one reason, it's the same as for another reason. Pipelines can be shut down, a reason, or Europe can refuse to buy, or Russia can refuse to sell, or the pipes can be sabotaged. For whatever reason, Russia can't be part of the plan.

     It's just like my opinion, man, but I judge that Russia being not in the plan should have been the plan all along.


     

[Christo]

Changing that will require European powers to come up with a practical alternative for centralized command, something Europeans have failed to do for all of European history.

Very much the same applies to all countries, worldwide. The European cooperation from 1950 onwards is simply unique in world history, and even closer forms of cooperation are not to be expected. 

[Todd]

Very much the same applies to all countries, worldwide. The European cooperation from 1950 onwards is simply unique in world history, and even closer forms of cooperation are not to be expected.

If European countries cannot cooperate more effectively than right now, then Europe as a whole will become less and less important in world affairs in the coming decades.  That will be good for everyone else.

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Very much the same applies to all countries, worldwide. The European cooperation from 1950 onwards is simply unique in world history, and even closer forms of cooperation are not to be expected.

Good to hear from you Christo.

Hope that all is well with you these days?

PD

[Christo]

Europe as a whole will become less and less important in world affairs in the coming decades.  That will be good for everyone else.

The insignificance of the US - its fall as a great power - will even surpass theirs, no special reason for European countries to be worried.

Good to hear from you Christo.

Hope that all is well with you these days?

PD

Many thanks, well enough.

[Todd]

The insignificance of the US - its fall as a great power - will even surpass theirs, no special reason for European countries to be worried.

If one takes account of actual mechanisms of power, this is exceedingly unlikely.  Europe is the region that will weaken the most, from an already weak and dependent position.

Now to the current economic war bruising the continent:

EU plans to slam brakes on energy prices this week

Price caps will not work, of course.  One needn't look beyond the 30%+ jump in gas prices in the European markets today.  If supplies are not properly restored, rationing is on its way: French PM says companies may face energy 'rationing' this winter

And the Euro fell below parity today.  Of course, King Dollar has been on a tear against pretty much all other currencies as of late for multiple reasons.  If it gets too high, something like the Plaza Accord might be needed, but how that would work if the current mix of international woes persist is unknown right now. 

[MusicTurner]

Very much the same applies to all countries, worldwide. The European cooperation from 1950 onwards is simply unique in world history, and even closer forms of cooperation are not to be expected.

As of May 2022, EU has 7 ongoing, albeit modest, military missions abroad, Congo in 2003 being the first one, and fighting Somalia pirates being a recent one ('Operation Atalanta'), plus 11 missions that have a more a 'civilian' content, such as aimed at improving border controls, defense and justice systems etc. outside the EU. A specific EU rapid response force, a brigade of 5,000, is now formally being organized, for various military missions.

[milk]

If European countries cannot cooperate more effectively than right now, then Europe as a whole will become less and less important in world affairs in the coming decades.  That will be good for everyone else.

What's the bad stuff that we'll get less of? Sometimes I want to ask these meta questions but one always needs to whittle these things down to sets of smaller inquiry. I mean, we can probably say that the state of the world has improved a lot over the last five or six decades. If we can avert major environmental breakdown and nuclear apocalypse, we can see ourselves facing a whole different condition. But I wonder who or what is responsible? I know towards whom the finger points if humanity falls off the environmental knife's edge.

[Madiel]

If European countries cannot cooperate more effectively than right now, then Europe as a whole will become less and less important in world affairs in the coming decades.  That will be good for everyone else.

The United States of America is technically one country, and it struggles to cooperate effectively with itself.

[Todd]

What's the bad stuff that we'll get less of?

The immediate benefits would come from a weakening of rules and regulations created by the European Parliament and the European Commission, which while merely regional, strive to be global, and do impose burdensome costs on companies domiciled in other parts of the world.  Think online privacy, and such.  Also, an increasingly weakened Europe may very well result in fewer military interventions undertaken by the great white saviors.  France has been most active in this regard this century, with the UK acting more as American lapdog.  Decreased cooperation may very well see even less cooperation in various international organizations like the UN and its appendages, various international economic organizations, and so on.  Realistically, with the internal fissures more or less known, it looks like existing European institutions will hobble along, occasionally bailing out less well-run countries (eg, Italy), generating some meddlesome regulations, ineffectively trying to work through extant institutions, and relying on the US for protection.  If the current economic war with Russia is severe enough, or if future crises are severe enough, it is conceivable that European-style nationalism - the very worst kind - becomes more prevalent, multiple countries succumb, and leave the EU and the Euro and leave the experiment in worse shape than when the UK left.  That would be great.

[milk]

The immediate benefits would come from a weakening of rules and regulations created by the European Parliament and the European Commission, which while merely regional, strive to be global, and do impose burdensome costs on companies domiciled in other parts of the world.  Think online privacy, and such.  Also, an increasingly weakened Europe may very well result in fewer military interventions undertaken by the great white saviors.  France has been most active in this regard this century, with the UK acting more as American lapdog.  Decreased cooperation may very well see even less cooperation in various international organizations like the UN and its appendages, various international economic organizations, and so on.  Realistically, with the internal fissures more or less known, it looks like existing European institutions will hobble along, occasionally bailing out less well-run countries (eg, Italy), generating some meddlesome regulations, ineffectively trying to work through extant institutions, and relying on the US for protection.  If the current economic war with Russia is severe enough, or if future crises are severe enough, it is conceivable that European-style nationalism - the very worst kind - becomes more prevalent, multiple countries succumb, and leave the EU and the Euro and leave the experiment in worse shape than when the UK left.  That would be great.

I guess you don't see the EU as a positive for having ended nationalisms and eons of bloodshed in Europe? What if it only did that and none of the other stuff you didn't like? What if it could be reformed?
You don't give Europe any credit for leadership in effecting great improvements in quality of life the world has seen over the past five decades? That's what I was getting at before, not that I have evidence it's down to Europe but I see Europeans as so much more global than people where I live in Japan. I looked at a report recently on measures of global giving and generosity and Japanese are almost at the bottom of every measure.

[Madiel]

I guess you don't see the EU as a positive for having ended nationalisms and eons of bloodshed in Europe? What if it only did that and none of the other stuff you didn't like? What if it could be reformed?
You don't give Europe any credit for leadership in effecting great improvements in quality of life the world has seen over the past five decades? That's what I was getting at before, not that I have evidence it's down to Europe but I see Europeans as so much more global than people where I live in Japan. I looked at a report recently on measures of global giving and generosity and Japanese are almost at the bottom of every measure.

Todd has no interest in an improvement to the world if it came from elsewhere. To him it smacks too much of being told what to do.

This is the basic problem with American exceptionalism.

[MusicTurner]

We'll see, but currently, the Russians are trying to defend themselves against a Ukrainian offensive, not only at Kherson but now surprisingly also in the North at Kharkiv. Western experts have said all the time, that the advancing is going to take time, due to mines, minimizing Ukrainian losses, and the better strategy of exhausting logistics firstly. About a dozen villages/small towns have been reconquered, actually quicker than expected, in a few days.

That is, the Russians are currently not advancing, they're receding and trying to maybe gather for a later counter offensive - but with many logistical problems. They don't have the capacity for further advances right now.

Declaring war officially, a suggested, possible way out (?), is a very questionable  option; but it won't solve those problems in the immediate perspective, unless perhaps we're talking further absurdities like nukes, strategic bombers, or the like - which would add countless new problems.