Europe at War

[Todd]

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

This is a contrafactual assertion.  The Trump Administration began sending arms to Ukraine in 2017.  Ukraine cannot fight this war without the US.

[milk]

You are beating about so many houses, it's difficult to know what you're actually saying.
The argument you appear to be saying can be healthily debated is, I think, "America caused the Russo-Ukraine War", in a nutshell.

I don't agree that's even a vaguely rational proposition.

I'd have to reread all my posts but I don't think I'd put it exactly like that and I don't think that U.S. influence necessarily makes something bad. Taiwan, for example, is going to act a certain way that it wouldn't otherwise act if not for American influence. I am not sure (100%) of anything but I have confidence that there are some things that are rational and worth considering. One is that the Ukraine could not hope to successfully defend itself against Russia without U.S. support. I don't know if that's absolutely true. I'm not well-read on any of these topics. The other is that some say that U.S. policies directly led to this situation. Now, how we put this is tricky. It could be that the Ukraine was heading towards a conflict with Russia that the U.S. had good reasons to encourage it. How would you put Chomsky's and Mearsheimer's positions? The NPR article I linked is titled, "How NATO's expansion helped drive Putin to invade Ukraine." Yes, it may be wrong. These positions may be, as you describe them, not even "vaguely rational" propositions and "fact-devoid nonsense." It's up to you how satisfied you are with your understanding of the arguments. I'm not convinced you've really steel-manned what these sources have said. You've said they're laughable. I got that.

[Todd]

One is that the Ukraine could not hope to successfully defend itself against Russia without U.S. support. I don't know if that's absolutely true.

It is absolutely true.  People who assert otherwise do not know the facts, nor do they understand the breadth of US involvement.  It includes not just weapons systems, humanitarian assistance, and financial assistance, but also military intelligence and field testing of next generation satellite communications, all things that no other country or group of countries can provide.  European countries are bystanders or tagalongs as their imperial overlord directs the war.

[Todd]

But that doesn't contrafact anything!

Contrafact is not a verb.  Your assertion was contrafactual.  Ukraine cannot fight without US support.  It can fight without UK support.

It's not up to the US in any case who can and can't join NATO

This is another contrafactual assertion.  The US can block any country from joining.

[milk]

It is absolutely true.  People who assert otherwise do not know the facts, nor do they understand the breadth of US involvement.  It includes not just weapons systems, humanitarian assistance, and financial assistance, but also military intelligence and field testing of next generation satellite communications, all things that no other country or group of countries can provide.  European countries are bystanders or tagalongs as their imperial overlord directs the war.

I wonder also how much monetary, diplomatic and other behind-the-scenes influence the U.S. has exercised towards outcomes. Obviously Russia did much. New Zealand? I'm thinking not so much?

[Fëanor]

SO WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?  Certainly the USA is the best able to make a relatively huge contribution.  (Kudo's to tiny Latvia for doing so much relatively speaking.)  I argued earlier in this thread that the USA in NATO is is necessary & essential to offset Russia's nuclear blackmail.  The size of the USA's contribution to Ukrainian resistance is merely that country responsibly fulfilling its NATO contribution.

There is a faction who apparently hate & resent the primacy of the USA in world affairs have tried to paint Ukraine as a two-part hegemonist struggle between the USA and Russia.  That's not just an over-simplification it's essentially wrong.  There is no equivalence between the moral or practical intentions of Russia and the USA in this conflict or world affairs in general.

I'm not an American myself so I am able and entitled to call-out the ressentiment towards the USA of people like Chomsky and one or two contributing to this thread.

[Florestan]

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

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

Irrelevant. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine had filed their NATO candidature when Russia invaded them and neither of them could have filed it, actually, because both of them had unresolved territorial disputes with their neighbours, incidentally Russia.

[Todd]

I wonder also how much monetary, diplomatic and other behind-the-scenes influence the U.S. has exercised towards outcomes. Obviously Russia did much. New Zealand? I'm thinking not so much?

The US is easily the most powerful political entity in the world by every measure of power and influence.  I write entity because the US wields more power in every area than any single country or large bloc, namely the EU.  The DOD used to use the phrase "full spectrum dominance" to describe the desired state of US power.  This has been achieved.  The US leverages not just its military power and its military deployments, but also legal extraterritoriality, regulations, direct financial power (government loans and grants), secondary financial power (access to the US central bank), and tertiary financial power (access to private US financial institutions) to either influence or directly control policies and actions in other countries.  Non-miliary tools of influence have been used since no later than the Dawes Plan, and in the wake of 9/11, the US has used both new legislated powers and regulatory powers imposed by the Treasury to squeeze even US allies.  For quite a few years between 2002 and at least 2014, these new tools of financial coercion were points on contention among allies.  With hot war among white people now a thing, these have faded in importance.

Irrelevant.

Incorrect.  Bush's statements were criticized around the world at the time, and even Bobbie Gates said it was too much at the time.  Bush's policy proposals are not just relevant, they are foundational elements of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

[Florestan]

The US can block any country from joining.

Yes but there's nothing special to that. Any NATO country can do that.

A better question is: can the US, by their own will and action, bring any country in NATO? The answer is no. So much for NATO being a tool of American imperialism.

[Todd]

Yes but there's nothing special to that. Any NATO country can do that.

I was pointing out the contrafactual nature of the statement.

A better question is: can the US, by their own will and action, bring any country in NATO? The answer is no. So much for NATO being a tool of American imperialism.

Read response 4783.  The US uses pressure all the time to achieve desired ends.  It requires a certain naivete to believe that the US does not use its power to achieve its imperial ends.  NATO is the military tool of US imperialism in Europe.

I'm not an American myself so I am able and entitled to call-out the ressentiment towards the USA of people like Chomsky and one or two contributing to this thread.

This reflects your misunderstanding, and nothing else.

[Florestan]

Incorrect.  Bush's statements were criticized around the world at the time, and even Bobbie Gates said it was too much at the time.  Bush's policy proposals are not just relevant, they are foundational elements of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Please illuminate us: (1) when did Ukraine file an official request for NATO membership? (2) when was this request discussed in a NATO council? (3) when was Ukraine officially accepted as a NATO candidate?

[Todd]

Please illuminate us: (1) when did Ukraine file an official request for NATO membership? (2) when was this request discussed in a NATO council? (3) when was Ukraine officially accepted as a NATO candidate?

This is irrelevant question begging.

[Florestan]

The US uses pressure all the time to achieve desired ends.  It requires a certain naivete to believe that the US does not use its power to achieve its imperial ends.  NATO is the military tool of US imperialism in Europe.

Then how come Finland and Sweden are not yet NATO members? According to your theory, their accession should have been ratified on fast-forward mode long time ago.

[Florestan]

This is irrelevant question begging.

You claimed that Ukraine's putative accession to NATO triggered the war. How, then, can the fact that Ukraine had actually never been a NATO candidate be irrelevant to the discussion?

[Todd]

Then how come Finland and Sweden are not yet NATO members? According to your theory, their accession should have been ratified on fast-forward mode long time ago.

No, I have been clear that proper diplomacy takes time and is hard.  Negotiations have been going on for less than a year.  Things are moving quickly.

You claimed that Ukraine's putative accession to NATO triggered the war.

That is not what I claimed.

[Fëanor]

Irrelevant. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine had filed their NATO candidature when Russia invaded them and neither of them could have filed it, actually, because both of them had unresolved territorial disputes with their neighbours, incidentally Russia.

Yeah, except these unresolved disputes are very largely imposed by Russia.

[Todd]

Yeah, except these unresolved disputes are very largely imposed by Russia.

Not really. 

Take Georgia: Georgia started war with Russia: EU-backed report

The US and NATO allies established the conditions that led to Russian aggression against Ukraine. 

[Florestan]

I have been clear that proper diplomacy takes time and is hard.

I should have thought that there is no need for diplomacy between an imperial power and their vassals. The empire dictates, the vassals obey. Now you tell us that actually the empire needs proper, time-consuming, difficult diplomacy to achieve its goals even with the vassals. Some empire, this one of yours!

[Todd]

I should have thought that there is no need for diplomacy between an imperial power and their vassals.

The American empire relies partly on the fiction of legalism.  Until it doesn't.

[milk]

SO WHERE'S THE PROBLEM?  Certainly the USA is the best able to make a relatively huge contribution.  (Kudo's to tiny Latvia for doing so much relatively speaking.)  I argued earlier in this thread that the USA in NATO is is necessary & essential to offset Russia's nuclear blackmail.  The size of the USA's contribution to Ukrainian resistance is merely that country responsibly fulfilling its NATO contribution.

There is a faction who apparently hate & resent the primacy of the USA in world affairs have tried to paint Ukraine as a two-part hegemonist struggle between the USA and Russia.  That's not just an over-simplification it's essentially wrong.  There is no equivalence between the moral or practical intentions of Russia and the USA in this conflict or world affairs in general.

I'm not an American myself so I am able and entitled to call-out the ressentiment towards the USA of people like Chomsky and one or two contributing to this thread.

I'm actually not a fan of Chomsky and not deep into this argument usually. There's a simple point here about U.S. power that you seem to get. Past that, I've mostly said in the recent past that Todd obviously makes well-thought-out sincerely held and serious points that are met with a lot of weird accusations. I do see the necessity of provoking thought, especially living where I live. I make an analogy, rightly or wrongly, to my own region of residence. The U.S. guarantees a certain arrangement of things vis a vis East Asia. It could be moral or necessary or practical or otherwise. However it is, the Ukraine has received that huge contribution that, um, guarantees the possibility of a direction. But just fulfilling its NATO contribution? Is THAT what the U.S. is up to? Huh. As Biden would say, "come on man!"