Europe at War

[Fëanor]

This seems to me to be a lot of unintentional motte and bailey type stuff. I'll say this again: I'm against Russia (basically) but I'm not against reality and facts. I'll say this again: I don't know much about the politics and history of the region in general but you seem to be avoiding something that I'm seeing clearly from Chomsky (as in here for example:
https://rozenbergquarterly.com/chomsky-us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/)
Are you seeing it? The motte is that U.S. policy is merely based on not wanting to deny the Ukraine's sovereignty and right to join organizations that will have it. It's so innocent. Nothing more.
What's the bailey?

Slow-witted me:  I really don't get the motte+bailey analogy.  But indeed, US policy isn't "merely based on not wanting to deny the Ukraine's sovereignty and right to join organizations".  It's about preventing Russian imperialist ambitions.

Please avoid drawing a stupid false equivalency of US ambitions and Russian ambitions:  they are miles apart.  The USA is, at least, still a liberal democracy;  Russia never was and isn't.  If American intentions aren't always totally altruistic or benign,  Russia's (under Putin) are any but.

As for Chomsky, he should stick to theoretical linguistics.  BTW, in that field too he is considered rather eccentric.

[Todd]

Chomsky should stick to theoretical linguistics.  BTW, in that field too he is considered rather eccentric.

I believe this is an ad hominem fallacy.  That is common on the internet, and ultimately there's nothing wrong with it, though it does definitively demonstrate that the author is not interested in debate.  That, too, is fine.

[drogulus]

    Of course we could continue to warp the space/time continuum and hypothesize about Finland and Sweden.

    One day Ukraine and Georgia may in fact be in NATO as a defense against imperial Kazahk designs, or just because, my favorite reason. Who can say>

[drogulus]

     I don't think it's up to the US or Russia what values Ukraine imports.

     Perhaps the Tatars Stalin deported from Crimea will be allowed to return. Will they bring Russian values with them?

     Zelensky wasn't in office when Russia illegally annexed chunks of Ukraine and Tatarstan (oh, I meant to say Crimea).

[Fëanor]

Pro-war propaganda works.

For sure, and MSM is all "fake news".

[Fëanor]

I believe this is an ad hominem fallacy.  That is common on the internet, and ultimately there's nothing wrong with it, though it does definitively demonstrate that the author is not interested in debate.  That, too, is fine.

Ad hominem?  Not really: I'm saying the Chomsky's celebrity doesn't lend weight to his opinions outside his field of expertise or make them necessarily better than yours, or mine, or Prince Harry's.

[Todd]

For sure, and MSM is all "fake news".

Corporate press is a more accurate description.  Generally speaking, most corporate press outlets report basic facts properly - even Fox and MSNBC do this properly - but then most of them follow tried and true propaganda techniques.  Placement of stories in print or broadcast; not covering stories (a perfect current example is the complete blackout of Twitter stories on broadcast and cable news); op-ed selection; panel guest selection (including a disproportionately high number of intelligence and security officials); reliance on national and/or racial stereotypes (eg, use of language regarding "tribalism"), and so forth.  The corporate press in the English-speaking world has been shamefully pro-war.  There is more skepticism in some French and German outlets, for instance, and much more in various Asian outlets.  Cultural chauvinism and outright racism play a critical role in determining which outlets people turn to.  The stifling stranglehold that the corporate press has over many or most people is obvious.

Ad hominem?  Not really

Your prior post on the topic was the very definition of an ad hominem attack.

[drogulus]

    I note TrumPutinist propaganda had considerable overlap with White Christian and Qanon affiliation.

    The mainstream media won't tell you this, but people who think the "mainstream media won't tell you such and such" deserve all the truthyness Chomsky and the like can dish out.

    No one has an excuse for not understanding how Putin is reading Russian history. He makes speeches about it. He feels justified in waging war to recapture the Czarist empire.

     In spite of peacemonger propaganda to the contrary, if an aggressor wages war, the war is a fact. Acknowledging that fact doesn't make you any kind of monger, it just makes you sentient. It's a war even if the "mainstream" says so.

[drogulus]

     I'm not sure if Biden was attempting to prevent Putin from invading Ukraine (again) or trying to lure him into a war with the West. Somebody please say something in Chomsky to clear this issue up.

[drogulus]

     Don't forget to factor "imperialism" in as a negative for the US and as a default positive for Russia. You hardly even have to say the last bit, and upon reflection you'd better not.

[Madiel]

It seems like this really is a matter of how you're phrasing it. I mean, would you disagree with Chomsky on this? Perhaps this is just semantics at this point.

To wit:
Chomsky told us that it "should be clear that the (Russian) invasion of Ukraine has no (moral) justification." He compared it to the US invasion of Iraq, seeing it as an example of "supreme international crime." With this moral question settled, Chomsky believes that the main 'background' of this war, a factor that is missing in mainstream media coverage, is "NATO expansion."

"This is not just my opinion," said Chomsky, "it is the opinion of every high-level US official in the diplomatic services who has any familiarity with Russia and Eastern Europe. This goes back to George Kennan and, in the 1990s, Reagan's ambassador Jack Matlock, including the current director of the CIA; in fact, just everybody who knows anything has been warning Washington that it is reckless and provocative to ignore Russia's very clear and explicit red lines. That goes way before (Vladimir) Putin, it has nothing to do with him; (Mikhail) Gorbachev, all said the same thing. Ukraine and Georgia cannot join NATO, this is the geostrategic heartland of Russia."

From https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provocation-chomsky-root-causes-russia-ukraine-war

There is a world of difference between saying that NATO expansion is a background to the war and saying that NATO expansion is at fault and caused the war.

The difference being whether you think the attitude and response of Russian leaders like Putin makes an ounce of sense and has a rational basis. Whether you believe that expansion is a "threat". Whether you treat NATO as nothing more than an American front with a whole lot of countries that lack any will of their own, despite the actual processes they went through to join NATO.

Sure, the expansion of NATO is the background to Russia invading Ukraine. Just like Biden's election win is the background to the January 6 storming of the US Capitol. We all know this. Background does not mean JUSTIFICATION.

And Todd's mistake is that he keeps treating it as the latter. Chomsky, apparently, does not make that mistake. Edit: or maybe he does, because different bits of the quote point different ways.

[71 dB]

The 28 NATO members who have kindly ratified the memberships of Sweden and Finland are apparently "frustrated" because Turkey and Hungary are taking time with the ratification. The foreign minister of Finland, Pekka Haavisto, said in an interview on TV that there has been talks among the 28 countries that they could give Sweden and Finland article 5 safety quarantees without Turkey and Hungary as a solution to this situation. In fact I have been thinking about this solution for months, but I considered it unrealistic, because I underestimated the willingness of the 28 NATO countries to solve this.

Hungary has "promised" to ratify in February, but this remains to be seen. As for Turkey, their ridiculous demands are a real problems particularly when it comes to Sweden. Changes are they will NEVER ratify!

[Todd]

It is very telling that some foolish officials and some gullible members of the public are so eager to further militarize foreign policy that they are willing to accept an erosion of one of the defining traits of the NATO treaty.  It will also set an exceptionally dangerous precedent that will be used at a later time.  Some people will happily rationalize this, of course.

Proper diplomacy takes time and is hard.

If this horrible idea comes to fruition, the only sensible course of action will be to pour money into defense ETFs.

[Que]

The foreign minister of Finland, Pekka Haavisto, said in an interview on TV that there has been talks among the 28 countries that they could give Sweden and Finland article 5 safety quarantees without Turkey and Hungary as a solution to this situation. In fact I have been thinking about this solution for months, but I considered it unrealistic, because I underestimated the willingness of the 28 NATO countries to solve this.

That would be a very, very bad idea....

Orbán will cave in under pressure - he already overplayed his hand within the EU.
Erdoğan will be a much tougher nut to crack.... He successfully played both sides in the Russo-Ukrainian war and strengthened his strategic position. But Turkey is not doing well economically - that is his weak spot.

[Madiel]

It is very telling that some foolish officials and some gullible members of the public are so eager to further militarize foreign policy that they are willing to accept an erosion of one of the defining traits of the NATO treaty.  It will also set an exceptionally dangerous precedent that will be used at a later time.  Some people will happily rationalize this, of course.

Proper diplomacy takes time and is hard.

If this horrible idea comes to fruition, the only sensible course of action will be to pour money into defense ETFs.

Wait, so NOW it's a defining trait of the treaty? Up until now you've kept telling us how it's the Americans who unilaterally decide who's in the NATO club. But suddenly, it's of vital importance to you that every country is involved.

[milk]

I had to do a word-search on that Chomsky article to see it mentioned either "motte" or "bailey".

Hot news: it didn't.

Other hot news: it didn't clear up the issue you speak of, either.

It's the fallacy of defending or switching to the weaker position (instead of the stronger more-difficult-to-defend one). Who can argue with allowing the Ukraine to join whatever it wants to? But U.S. policy seems to have long been to have the Ukraine join NATO. This is a fact. You can argue that this is a good thing, that Ukraine has long feared Russia's vision of the Ukraine as an other Russian people or however is the correct way to put it. There seems to be little doubt that a conflict was inevitable without some sort of compromise. This is clear if one looks at the positions of even Yeltsin and Gorbachev. So, this war seems to have always required American involvement.

[Todd]

So, this war seems to have always required American involvement.

Obviously.  No NATO, no war.  No US support and direction, no NATO.  A European-only version of NATO (a purely silly notion, to be sure) may have been able to lead to such a conflict, but profitable Mars mining by 2035 is more probable than effective, coordinated European-only defense this century. 

[milk]

Obviously.  No NATO, no war.  No US support and direction, no NATO.  A European-only version of NATO (a purely silly notion, to be sure) may have been able to lead to such a conflict, but profitable Mars mining by 2035 is more probable than effective, coordinated European-only defense this century.

Maybe I have to reread everything here. Are people denying that this is geopolitics, i.e. one empire showing the other that it is...no more? Is that a wrong way to see this (I mean besides other very real questions of what Uranians want for themselves and how they can get it)? This war seems to have been a long time coming.

[Todd]

Maybe I have to reread everything here. Are people denying that this is geopolitics, i.e. one empire showing the other that it is...no more? Is that a wrong way to see this (I mean besides other very real questions of what Uranians want for themselves and how they can get it)? This war seems to have been a long time coming.

Almost everyone on this forum who posts on this topic adamantly denies the existence of an American empire while pointing to a Russian empire of unlimited ambition and terrifying military capability that, while not able to vanquish Ukraine quickly, somehow represents some type of existential threat to Europe.  The US has been overtly interfering in Ukrainian affairs since no later than 2014.  There's that infamous Victoria Nuland phone call that was released in that year to offer aural evidence.  I'm sure certain people on this forum will insist it means something else.  That the US has toppled governments all around the world starting no later than the 50s, and earlier in the western hemisphere, and triggered horrific wars to achieve those ends, is incontrovertible fact, yet somehow that sordid history does not apply here.  Or something like that.  No, the US is partnering with countries generally and Ukraine specifically to selflessly help them establish liberal democracy, the only legitimate form of government.  It's good guys vs bad guys.

[Madiel]

Maybe I have to reread everything here. Are people denying that this is geopolitics, i.e. one empire showing the other that it is...no more? Is that a wrong way to see this (I mean besides other very real questions of what Uranians want for themselves and how they can get it)? This war seems to have been a long time coming.

Ukrainians want to join the EU. Not the United States.

As I've pointed out to you before, the desire of Ukrainians, particularly in the west of the country, to be more Europe-looking and independent from Russia dates back to the 19th century, long before USA power was prominent. Russians blame the Austrian empire for creating a fictional Ukrainian national identity.

Saying this is all about America ignores how much of it predates the time when America had any influence in Europe.

Go and ask around the EU whether they're part of the American empire. See what kind of reaction you get.