Europe at War

[Todd]

that are met with a lot of weird accusations

I can't decide which I find funnier, accusations of hating America, being a Putin apologist, or being a Nazi.  They all make me chortle, to use GMGese.

[Florestan]

The American empire relies partly on the fiction of legalism.

Please, make up your mind: it'either proper, time-onsuming, difficult diplomacy or it's a fiction of legalism. You can't have both.

While you're at it, please make up your mind about what you claim, too. You deny having claimed that Ukraine's putative accession to NATO triggered the war, yet before this denial you claimed that:

Bush's policy proposals .. are foundational elements of the Russo-Ukrainian War.

and after this denial you claimed that

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

So, you haven't claimed what you actually claimed. Or you have claimed what you actually didn't claim.

[Karl Henning]

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

Bingo. Somebody's blinders are showing.

[Karl Henning]

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

I applaud the polite use of nonsense.

[Florestan]

I can't decide which I find funnier, accusations of hating America, being a Putin apologist, or being a Nazi.

Your views on America coincide to a great extent with those of people who do hate Anerica.

Your views on Russia and its actions coincide to a great extent with those of Putin's.

I don't recall anyone accusing you of being a Nazi.

[71 dB]

Sweden and Finland are, functionally, already inside the tent.

Yes, I agree, but Sweden and Finland are a few feet inside the tent, not near the center pole where peace of mind is higher.

[milk]

Bingo. Somebody's blinders are showing.

Somebody has nothing to say.

I applaud the polite use of nonsense.

Applause from a groundling I hear.

[milk]

I predict the imminent demise of this thread. 3,2,1...

[Fëanor]

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!"

There is no need to pretend that the American policies and actions are pure & pristine altruism.  But there is a danger in weighing American self-interest too heavily.  Americans of good will (and some without) believe that liberal democracy and rule-of-law are in America's self-interest.  (What happy coincidence of self-interest and the public good.)  Putin's Russia doesn't see anything good about liberal democracy;  Putin said so himself in as many words.

As for NATO, SURE there are Russians who see it a threat.  They are old-time militarists or others nostalgic for the Soviet Empire.  Placating these Russians is pure appeasement.  I believe that even they, (in their lucid moments). will realized that former satellites and republics flocked to NATO for protection against Russian imperialist ambitions.

Evidently satellites and republics evidently feared supposed American hegemonism a good deal less -- they chose their poison and it was a good choice.

[Todd]

My degree is from Cambridge University.

Wow.

You can't have both.

The US does.

While you're at it, please make up your mind about what you claim, too.

My mind does not need to be made up.  Facts are facts.  George W Bush proposed Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership in 2008.  This was highly provocative.  The formal process for Ukrainian membership has not started.  NATO has aggressively and recklessly expanded eastward five times since the end of the Cold War.  Bush's suggestions were the most extreme, aggressive form of security diplomacy in the post-Cold War world.  Pro-war posters on this board obviously and passionately support neocon policies, proposed or implemented.

Placating these Russians is pure appeasement.

Godwin's Law.

[drogulus]

     Putin was surprised that the US and NATO would support Ukraine effectively. He thought they wouldn't, and that must have been "the provocation".

     Of course provocation as a cause is an ideological presup among critics of US power. Are countries provoked to invade by the strength of opposition or by its presumed weakness? It seems to me that "yes to both" is not rational.

     For Putin the problem isn't that hard. He can argue both alternatives because no one expects his arguments to follow a consistent line. All he needs to do is plant many seeds of doubt. It doesn't matter at all that no coherent thesis is advanced. Everything and its opposite is true as long as it helps the befuddled stay that way.

     Aggressors spot a weakness and strike if they like the odds. The charges of provocation are meant to confuse, not explain.

[Florestan]

George W Bush proposed Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership in 2008... The formal process for Ukrainian membership has not started.  NATO has ... expanded eastward five times since the end of the Cold War.

Well, precisely. Both before and after Bush's proposals NATO expanded eastward and Russia did not fire a single pistol shot. Yet despite the fact that Bush's proposals remained just that, proposals, and Ukraine was not even a candidate, Russia invaded them twice. It's obvious that NATO expansion has got nothing to do with it. Ukraine's own actions have: they signaled their wish to escape Russia's sphere of influence, and Russia simply cannot accept that. They have never regarded Ukraine as anything else than an integral part of Russia, except when it served their own interest to do so, for example when they secured a place and thus a vote for Ukraine at the UN (they did the same for Belarus).

[Todd]

It's obvious that NATO expansion has got nothing to do with it.

Incorrect.

[Todd]

Some Hollywood propaganda, Sean Penn introducing the pure of heart Volodymyr Zelenskyy:

Be inspired!

[Florestan]

Incorrect.

Why did Russia not invade the Baltic States when they declared their intention to join NATO and NATO officially accepted their candidacy?

[Todd]

Why did Russia not invade the Baltic States when they declared their intention to join NATO?

A delicious red herring.

[milk]

An interesting side note:
Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
A study finds minimal impact from Russian influence operations on Twitter in the Trump-Clinton presidential race
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/

[Todd]

An interesting side note:
Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters
A study finds minimal impact from Russian influence operations on Twitter in the Trump-Clinton presidential race
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/01/09/russian-trolls-twitter-had-little-influence-2016-voters/

Russians have infiltrated NYU.  Russian power and perfidy must never be underestimated.  The study is fake news.  Everyone knows this.

[Florestan]

A delicious red herring.

So typical of you: a snide one-liner instead of a rational answer (or a frank avowal of not having a rational answer). Time and again you prove you're not worth being taken as a serious and honest discussion partner, milk's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Todd]

So typical of you: a snide one-liner instead of a rational answer (or a frank avowal of not having a rational answer). Time and again you prove you're not worth being taken as a serious and honest discussion partner, milk's protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

No, your question is a perfect example of a red herring.