Europe at War

[milk]

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.

How is this relevant? Whether the Ukraine succeeds or fails IS all about America. And the way it got here is as well. They can be as "Europe looking" as they want. I suppose you can ask around Europe whether they want to cut ties with American-backed military organizations (would be Todd's quite rational and obvious argument). "For the U.S. and its Western allies, a successful and independent Ukraine was a potent potential symbol that Russia's time as a powerful empire had come to an end. During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia. The result was a 'worst of all worlds' compromise in 2008...a promise that Ukraine would eventually join NATO, but without any concrete timeline or pathway to do so." https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

[Todd]

No NATO, no EU. 

[Madiel]

How is this relevant? Whether the Ukraine succeeds or fails IS all about America. And the way it got here is as well. They can be a "Europe looking" as they want. I suppose you can ask around Europe whether they want to cut ties with American-backed military organizations (would be Todd's quite rational and obvious argument). "For the U.S. and its Western allies, a successful and independent Ukraine was a potent potential symbol that Russia's time as a powerful empire had come to an end. During the early 2000s, President George W. Bush pushed for Ukraine to become a NATO member. France and Germany opposed it, fearing escalation with Russia. The result was a 'worst of all worlds' compromise in 2008...a promise that Ukraine would eventually join NATO, but without any concrete timeline or pathway to do so." https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer

How is this relevant...?

So basically, you're just as US-centric as Todd, and fuck the Europeans for having a history or desires that don't involve you.

The US is giving aid to Ukraine. So are a pile of other countries. It's not America's war just because Americans like making a noise about how important they are.

[Madiel]

America did not invent all the trappings of Western civilisation. In certain cases it hasn't even got around to ADOPTING them. So can we please get past treating the rest of the "West" as nothing more than American vassals.

[Karl Henning]

treating the rest of the "West" as nothing more than American vassals.

Truly a singularly dull-witted conceit.

[milk]

America did not invent all the trappings of Western civilisation. In certain cases it hasn't even got around to ADOPTING them. So can we please get past treating the rest of the "West" as nothing more than American vassals.

I think this is just typical of you. This is how you operate. So, my view is that America is superior to Europe, that it's more civilized? I think this just shows how dishonest you are as an interlocutor. I don't really mind it - most people on here are just fine but I do find you unusually insincere. That's a tactic.
Anyway, the U.S. is obviously superior militarily. That's obviously the question we're dealing with and I really don't know how this conversation gets so out of wack that the most obvious things get taken to such unrealistic realms of fantasy and convolution. There are people that argue that U.S. power is a good thing or a necessary thing. There are those that argue it's a bad thing. There are those that think it's sustainable or unsustainable. It seems settled that the U.S. has long wanted the Ukraine in NATO knowing what that would lead to. You can argue that this is a good thing. Or you can continue arguing that this is a misunderstanding of the situation I guess. But there's so much evidence for this. 

[Madiel]

Sigh. That's my first response.

Again, whether the US would like Ukraine in NATO is quite, quite different to believing that the US is the arbiter of whether or not Ukraine is in NATO. The issue is the constant elevating of what the US wants for the membership of NATO over what EVERY OTHER MEMBER wants.

And the profound lack of engagement, until it suddenly suited Todd, with the actual voting structure of NATO.

I'm not disputing most of what the US position is. What annoys the hell out of me is the complete sidelining of anyone else's position as if it's irrelevant. Other European countries obviously, but also countries elsewhere. India's position is important. Today in the media here there's an interesting article about the Russian presence in Central African Republic.

But in this thread, what repeatedly comes across is a narrative that is little more than that the world is still a simple 2-sided US v Russia contest, which wasn't even very accurate in the Cold War era and is still less accurate now. I can find it believable that an ex-KGB agent is locked into this line of thinking, but it's a little bizarre to me that anyone talking on the internet could still believe the world works like this.

People in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other "Western" countries are not simply pseudo-Americans with amusing accents.** Ukraine has been trying for about 150 years to assert that it is not Russia, but "not Russian" is not a synonym for "American". It certainly wasn't when the US was busy recovering from a civil war, which is how far back the question of Ukraine's place in the world actually goes.

As to your claim that I'm dishonest or insincere: it's ironic that you claim to be able to see inside my head when complaining that I've failed to see inside yours. The fact that I say things you dislike does not make me dishonest and insincere. I can assure you I sincerely mean what I say. I'm not here to troll.

**Noting that the USA itself is a strikingly diverse country in some ways. The argument that it's actually something like 11 nations fused together strikes me as quite plausible.

[milk]

How is this relevant...?

So basically, you're just as US-centric as Todd, and fuck the Europeans for having a history or desires that don't involve you.

As to your claim that I'm dishonest or insincere: it's ironic that you claim to be able to see inside my head when complaining that I've failed to see inside yours. The fact that I say things you dislike does not make me dishonest and insincere.

Yeah. I know dude. Believe me, I hold up my pants with a rope. Those Kiwis are just 'Mercians with a funny accent.

[Madiel]

Anyway, the U.S. is obviously superior militarily. That's obviously the question we're dealing with
and I really don't know how this conversation gets so out of wack that the most obvious things get taken to such unrealistic realms of fantasy and convolution.

This is what I'm talking about. How, in a thread about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the superiority of the American military the question that we're "obviously" dealing with?

To the point that you complain we've inexplicably got onto topics that don't involve America.

People who want to talk about other countries are not diverting the thread. The constant centrality of America is diverting the thread. Russia invaded Ukraine. Those two countries are central to the discussion. America is not. The overall might of the US military is not that key to a war in Ukraine when the US is basically giving a bit of spare change to the Ukrainian army, except to the extent that America's small change is larger than the UK's spare change (similar amount of GDP involved, I checked).

So sure, the US military is impressive. It's also basically not in Ukraine. I hear the Chinese military is pretty impressive too, so should we be talking about that on a thread about War in Europe?

[milk]

This is what I'm talking about. How, in a thread about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the superiority of the American military the question that we're "obviously" dealing with?

To the point that you complain we've inexplicably got onto topics that don't involve America.

People who want to talk about other countries are not diverting the thread. The constant centrality of America is diverting the thread. Russia invaded Ukraine. Those two countries are central to the discussion. America is not. The overall might of the US military is not that key to a war in Ukraine when the US is basically giving a bit of spare change to the Ukrainian army, except to the extent that America's small change is larger than the UK's spare change (similar amount of GDP involved, I checked).

So sure, the US military is impressive. It's also basically not in Ukraine. I hear the Chinese military is pretty impressive too, so should we be talking about that on a thread about War in Europe?

This is what I'm talking about. How, in a thread about the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is the superiority of the American military the question that we're "obviously" dealing with?

To the point that you complain we've inexplicably got onto topics that don't involve America.

People who want to talk about other countries are not diverting the thread. The constant centrality of America is diverting the thread. Russia invaded Ukraine. Those two countries are central to the discussion. America is not. The overall might of the US military is not that key to a war in Ukraine when the US is basically giving a bit of spare change to the Ukrainian army, except to the extent that America's small change is larger than the UK's spare change (similar amount of GDP involved, I checked).

So sure, the US military is impressive. It's also basically not in Ukraine. I hear the Chinese military is pretty impressive too, so should we be talking about that on a thread about War in Europe?

[Madiel]

So you didn't read what I actually said, then.

Military aid does not mean the US military has been deployed in Ukraine. Any more than people sending money or food or goods as humanitarian aid hop on a plane to Kyiv.

Australia has given Ukraine military aid. The vehicles we sent them are being driven by Ukrainian troops.

[milk]

It's not a fact just because you say it is. It seems to me (I'm not in the State Department, so I've only got appearances to go on) that US policy has long been to let Ukraine decide its own future as a sovereign, independent nation. Which seems rather innocuous to me, as policies go.

It's not up to the US in any case who can and can't join NATO (as Sweden and Finland are finding out. Thanks, Turkey!). Can US pressure be brought to bear on existing members in pursuit of a US desire for country X to join? Obviously, but it clearly isn't beyond anyone's capabilities to resist such pressure.

Never mind, either, that Ukraine membership was completely off the table until such time as Russia stopped annexing Crimea and the Russian-backed separatists in Luhansk and Donetsk were dealt with. Russia had (indeed, currently has) an effective veto over Ukraine's NATO membership, since you can't be a member without territorial integrity. So, what was new in 2022 about Ukraine's NATO ambitions compared to, say, 2015? Nothing. In both cases, it was never a practical possibility.

This war was waged in 2022, not 2015, however because of one big difference: by 2022, Ukraine was looking like it had managed to get its act together and be a successfully-functioning democracy, whereas in 2015, it was a bit of civil-war-ridden basketcase. Guess what Putin cannot have on his doorstep?

Your claim that 'this war always required American involvement' is fact-devoid nonsense, in short.

You can think that. That's fine. There's a very healthy debate about this with a number of reputable people thinking in the opposite direction. You think they're wrong. I'm not sure. At least there's an argument here and it's not ridiculous. I know the rhetoric here can get a bit hot. I've nothing against you BTW. I don't take anything personal here (even if I do think one particular person is silly, and it's not Todd). I disagree as far as saying the argument is nonsense. It's sense, right or wrong. What's more, I live in Japan, a country that's security is guaranteed by the U.S. military. Is it a vassal state? I'd say Japan looks out for its own interests (which includes its hypocritical stances on the nuclear umbrella). Is American power good? That's a question. Does it exist? That's not a question. Does it drive the facts on the ground? Not a question. But back to the Ukraine and a hope for an outcome that the world can bear.

[Florestan]

No NATO, no war.

Afghanistan was not a NATO candidate. Chechnya was not a NATO candidate, either in 1994 or 1999. Georgia was not a NATO candidate. Ukraine was not a NATO candidate, either in 2014 or 2022. Conversely, the Baltic States became NATO members without Russia's firing one single pistol shot at them.

[Madiel]

You can think that. That's fine. There's a very healthy debate about this with a number of reputable people thinking in the opposite direction. You think they're wrong. I'm not sure. At least there's an argument here and it's not ridiculous. I know the rhetoric here can get a bit hot. I've nothing against you BTW. I don't take anything personal here (even if I do think one particular person is silly, and it's not Todd). I disagree as far as saying the argument is nonsense. It's sense, right or wrong. What's more, I live in Japan, a country that's security is guaranteed by the U.S. military. Is it a vassal state? I'd say Japan looks out for its own interests (which include its hypocritical stances on the nuclear umbrella). Is American power good? That's a question. Does it exist? That's not a question. Does it drive the facts on the ground? Not a question. But back to the Ukraine and a hope for an outcome that the world can beat.

You don't take anything personally but you described me as insincere and dishonest. Basically for my keenness that a thread about a war in Europe actually focus on Europe. And saying that just maybe you should be aware that the awkward relationship between Ukraine and Russia has been in play for about 150 years.

The US military is not fighting in Ukraine.

[Florestan]

the awkward relationship between Ukraine and Russia has been in play for about 150 years.

And not just Ukraine, one might add. The vast majority of the nations which came under Russian hegemony one way or another sought to escape the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they could*. Many succeeded while a few remained in a limbo, including Ukraine, and they are still vulnerable to Russia's appetite for domination and control of their neighbours, which may at times be dormant but it's never extinct.

* in Rmoania, for instance, the move away from Russian hegemony started in 1848, gained traction in 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877 and 1881 and culminated in 1918; after a relapse between 1945 and 1989, our accession to full NATO membership in 2004 marks the first time in history when we are really safe from Russian aggression, short of WWIII.

[Madiel]

And not just Ukraine, one might add. The vast majority of the nations which came under Russian hegemony one way or another sought to escape the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they could*. Many succeeded while a few remained in a limbo, including Ukraine, and they are still vulnerable to Russia's appetite for domination and control of their neighbours, which may at times be dormant but it's never extinct.

* in Rmoania, for instance, the move away from Russian hegemony started in 1848, gained traction in 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877 and 1881 and culminated in 1918; after a relapse between 1945 and 1989, our accession to full NATO membership in 2004 marks the first time in history when we are really safe from Russian aggression, short of WWIII.

Yes, I don't doubt there's a much wider tract of Europe where it's an issue. Though I would also suggest it's particularly acute for Ukraine and Belarus where the Russian mindset seems to be that they're just Russians with funny accents. The related languages have encouraged this sort of argument. At one point Todd shared an article that took the "Ukraine is not really a country" line.

Russia might want to take over Romania, but would it suggest Romanians are not a distinct people? Part of me thinks not, I mean, you don't even speak a Slavic language. On the other hand... Moldova.

[Florestan]

Russia might want to take over Romania, but would it suggest Romanians are not a distinct people? Part of me thinks not, I mean, you don't even speak a Slavic language. On the other hand... Moldova.

The Republic of Moldova consist mainly of the former Bassarabia region of Moldova proper (the Principality of Moldova, that is), which never belonged to Russia until they annexed it in 1812. In 1918 their newly founded Parliament voted to reunite with Romania. In 1940 as a result of the Hitler-Stalin pact the USSR annexed it again, plus some additional territory which never belonged to Russia and which ended up in Ukraine.

Contrary to Russian propaganda, there is no such thing as a "Moldovan" language, let alone nation. They are Romanians who have undergone a long process of forced Russification; most of them still speak Romanian proper (a Romance language), albeit heavily influenced by Russian accent, syntax and vocabulary; a sizeable minority of them have been thoroughly Russified so that they speak mainly, or only , Russian. And then, of course, there are Russians proper who have settled there since 1812.

That being said, if a referendum were ever held for the unification of Romania and Republic of Moldova I'd vote "No" for reasons which should be obvious from the paragraph above. Allowing a few thousands Russians / Russophones to become Romanian citizens means a direct invitation to Putin and Russia to medley heavily in Romanian affairs under the pretext of protecting the interests of the Russian people. Such a danger clearly outweighs any benefit that might result from the unification. Actually, besides a moral historical reparation I don't see any such benefit.

[Todd]

Afghanistan was not a NATO candidate. Chechnya was not a NATO candidate, either in 1994 or 1999.

Different wars.

Georgia was not a NATO candidate.

George W Bush advocated for Georgia becoming a NATO member in 2008.

Ukraine was not a NATO candidate, either in 2014 or 2022.

George W Bush advocated for Ukraine becoming a NATO member in 2008.

[Todd]

The vast majority of the nations which came under Russian hegemony one way or another sought to escape the Russian sphere of influence as soon as they could*.

This is understandable.  It is not the responsibility of the US to offer an alternative.

[Todd]

Time is not on Ukraine's side

Robbie Gates and Condi Rice team up in one heckuva piece explaining why the US and Europe must accelerate weapons shipments to Time's Puppet of the Year.  The greatest hits of pro-war propaganda are in there: 1914!; 1941!!; 2001!!!; Churchill; Ukrainian heroism; lessons of history.  Oh my.  I swoon at the soaring rhetoric.  Mushroom cloud lady has gotten so, so much better.  Neocons of GMG should read, but only cautiously.  This powerful piece is likely to lead to ecstasy sufficient to make them pass out.  Good stuff, good stuff.