Ukraine

[CM156]

Every comment on this thread where I said something to the effect of "Guys, have you considered that the USA has also done bad things" in a glib manner, it was obviously a joke.
It was not an invitation to make basically that argument again and again.

 

[Gordon_4]

Every comment on this thread where I said something to the effect of "Guys, have you considered that the USA has also done bad things" in a glib manner, it was obviously a joke.
It was not an invitation to make basically that argument again and again.

You know that old saying that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc? My corollary to that was always 'And there'd still be some pig ignorant shit who'd confuse it for a goose'.

In your case, no matter how you phrased it - hell even if you were talking and your tone was DRIPPING with sarcasm - there's always gonna be some twat who thinks you're being serious.

 

[Thaluikhain]

You know that old saying that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc? My corollary to that was always 'And there'd still be some pig ignorant shit who'd confuse it for a goose'.

In your case, no matter how you phrased it - hell even if you were talking and your tone was DRIPPING with sarcasm - there's always gonna be some twat who thinks you're being serious.

In fairness, there are people saying the exact same thing and being serious, it's hard to tell who is which. Like all the comedians complain satire is redundant with the news we get today.

 

[Hades]

There was a diplomatic way to avoid this conflict but that door was closed to Russia. For years. They made proposals. There is little evidence that those proposals were even considered;

Because all those proposals involved Ukraine and to some extend the west too outsourcing their sovereignty to the Kremlin. Having Russia decree the economic and foreign policy of Ukraine is simply not the fair compromise Russia thinks it is. The diplomatic way to end this conflict is for Russia to accept that it doesn't own Ukraine and the rest of eastern Europe anymore.

The ''diplomatic way to avoid conflicts'' and ''Russian proposals'' always involves their neighbors having to give up either their sovereignty or their territory in order to appease Russia. As such we can't blame any country who doesn't want peace on Russia's uneven terms.

Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, both of which had civil wars involving the repression of a Russian-speaking minority, hostility toward Russia and Russians from their governments, and on top of that made a lot of noise about wanting to join NATO so they could threaten Russia in relative safety.

Nonsense. ''Protecting ethnic Russians'' is even more discredited than ''spreading democracy''. Russia was the aggressor in all those conflict. The ethnic tensions they used as an excuse being deliberately provoked, if not outright created by the Kremlin. You simply have it backwards. Russia's historical victims joining NATO is not a plot to destroy Russia. Its a means for those countries to avoid Russia invading and enslaving them yet again. A country like Poland which has been subjugated by both of Russia's predecessor states has every reason in the world to seek protection against Russia.

Everything you could object to Russia doing in Ukraine has a precedent in the actions of the United States, and frankly with better justification than the fabrication at the Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq (even if the allegations had been true!), or revenge for the destruction of the World Trade Center.

That sentiment only works if we operate from the assumption that Russia owns eastern Europe and that the west making ties with that region is already a provocation against Russia. But it isn't. The great ''precedent'' Russia was responding against was the west agreeing that Ukraine is an independent country. But the EU and Ukraine signing trade deals simply isn't an offensive action that Russia MUST have the most violently response possible towards.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Everything you could object to Russia doing in Ukraine has a precedent in the actions of the United States, and frankly with better justification than the fabrication at the Gulf of Tonkin, WMDs in Iraq (even if the allegations had been true!), or revenge for the destruction of the World Trade Center.

Let us assume that is true. How does the US being evil justify Russia being evil? Specifically in a way that is against Ukraine, and not the people behind the US's actions.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Let us assume that is true. How does the US being evil justify Russia being evil? Specifically in a way that is against Ukraine, and not the people behind the US's actions.

Because every country that Russia subjugates- err, I mean, welcomes into its family is one more brick in the road to a worldwide worker's utopia! Any criticism means that you hate workers and love rich people and McDonald's!

 

[Terminal Blue]

It is only small by comparison with the United States, which is true of literally every country on earth other than the United States.

The difference isn't just quantitative, it's qualitative. The UK has a very different relationship with its military and defense industry than the US does. BAE systems is a very large defense contractor, but it's large because it has a global reach. It sells more to the US military than it does to the MoD. The whole concept of a military industrial complex expresses the often close relationship between national militaries and the defense industries that supply them, but in the UK that relationship isn't particularly strong.

In this regard, the UK is actually fairly typical of European armed forces. Like the French military (or, for that matter, the Russian military) it is relatively expensive because it maintains some very expensive capabilities which are difficult for a smaller nation to support, but most of its indigenous equipment was designed and built decades ago and exists in relatively small numbers. In fact, as developing new systems becomes more expensive it's very likely that more and more of the systems that are currently in use will be replaced by those from other NATO members. The Eurofighter Typhoon is currently in the process of being replaced by the F-35, because it would be redundant to pay a British company to replicate that work and the MoD does not have the kind of budget or political clout to justify spending money like that.

And this comes down to the fact that there are fundamental political and cultural differences between the UK and the US. The armed forces of the UK do not have a particularly strong or well funded media or domestic propaganda arm, and as a result while most people support the military in a generalized sense most people have very little reason to ever think about them. This translates into a general political disregard. Pro-military positions aren't really a path to electoral success in the UK, because most people don't actually care all that much. Every year we have a little pissing match in the tabloids about whether remembrance day has become too politicized, and then we move on and forget the armed forces exist.

Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine, both of which had civil wars involving the repression of a Russian-speaking minority, hostility toward Russia and Russians from their governments, and on top of that made a lot of noise about wanting to join NATO so they could threaten Russia in relative safety.

Why do these countries have Russian speaking minorities?

You know the answer. I know the answer. It's because they were part of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, during which time non-Russian speaking areas were deliberately resettled with ethnic Russians and non-Russian languages formally or informally discouraged, with the result being a gradual demographic decline in speakers of those languages. This is what we in Britain like to call colonialism, and for some reason people don't like it. You might even say it makes people hostile.

And what people really, really, really don't like is when they finally escape from colonialism, only to discover that the country who previously colonized them still expects that relationship to continue..

 

[ralfy]

- Ukraine wasn't a NATO member.
- the only foreign military bases in Ukraine were Russian before the invasion.
- NATO hadn't invaded anyone, and hadn't even expanded significantly prior to the invasion. Its relevance, dominance and proportionate spending were actually slowing.
- Literally the only party to begin a massive war here is Russia. For territorial expansion.

Manipulation of Ukraine originated from NATO expansion:

Kennan’s Warning on Ukraine

Ambition, insecurity, and the perils of independence

www.foreignaffairs.com

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

 

[ralfy]

- Ukraine wasn't a NATO member.
- the only foreign military bases in Ukraine were Russian before the invasion.
- NATO hadn't invaded anyone, and hadn't even expanded significantly prior to the invasion. Its relevance, dominance and proportionate spending were actually slowing.
- Literally the only party to begin a massive war here is Russia. For territorial expansion.

Additional context:

According to its most liberal President, the U.S. is the most warlike in modern history:

Jimmy Carter: US ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’

The only US president to complete his term without war, military attack or occupation has called the United States “the most warlike nation in the history

www.counterpunch.org

And that is part of a very long history of destabilizing, manipulating, and intervening in other countries:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

sites.evergreen.edu

The reason it has to do that (called neoconservatism, and linked with neoliberalism, which involves onerous economic policies like structural adjustment, via the IMF-WB, and tied with financial credit and aid) is to ensure that countries remain dependent on the U.S. via the use of the dollar for trade. The U.S. needs that because demand for the dollar is the only way that it can continue heavy borrowing and spending, which it started in the early 1980s and continues to this day:

Krugman and the Pied Pipers of Debt

Investors are celebrating an incipient “recovery,” but the interventions that were responsible for it are sowing the seeds of a more violent contraction...

seekingalpha.com

Total debt is now over $94 trillion, and that's excluding over $180 trillion in unfunded liabilities:

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

The problem is that the U.S. is no longer in control and the Global South--Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, plus more from over forty countries--are answering back:

'It's not a pretty picture': Russia's support is growing in the developing world

Russia's sphere of influence is growing as propaganda and diplomatic efforts gather momentum, analysts suggest.

www.cnbc.com

Those who want more have to read beyond the headlines. This isn't about Russia anymore but about the U.S. These countries, many of which were manipulated and even attacked by the U.S., are now engaging in more trade with each other, moving away from the dollar, and no longer obeying the U.S.

Even allies like Japan are now buying oil from Russia, and France is selling gas to China in exchange for yuans.

With that, the U.S. may fall apart as less become dependent on it and on the dollar, and a multipolar world emerges.

 

[Satinavian]

Even allies like Japan are now buying oil from Russia, and France is selling gas to China in exchange for yuans.

Pff, most of the US allies were never invested in having the US as sole superpower. Or happy with the petrodollar. Or against a multipolar word. Multipolar world usually means that middling powers have more influence as well.

So the amount of gloom about the prospect of the US potentially losing some influence is pretty negligible.

As for the BRICS... well, Brazil, Russia and South Africa are not doing so hot. I don't see a future rise to power and influence for any of them. China is already powerful but has so many problems that it is unlikely to rise much further.


But isn't this thread supposed to be about the Ukraine ?

 

[Silvanus]

Manipulation of Ukraine originated from NATO expansion:

Kennan’s Warning on Ukraine

Ambition, insecurity, and the perils of independence

www.foreignaffairs.com

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the dissolution of the

www.counterpunch.org

Except, of course, that Russia has also been manipulating Ukraine-- and much, much more so. The narrative that focuses on the provocative nature of US influence in Ukraine always overlooks and ignores the fact that US meddling in Ukraine is, and always has been, utterly dwarfed by Russian meddling in Ukraine.

The biggest presence of foreign money in Ukraine? Russia. The biggest presence of foreign military in Ukraine? Russia. It is Russia that created and funded an insurgency for 8 years in Ukraine. It is Russia that operated all foreign army bases in Ukraine.

 

[Silvanus]

Additional context:

According to its most liberal President, the U.S. is the most warlike in modern history

All of this has fuck all to do with Ukraine. Just whataboutism, as per.

On a side note, I enjoy the fact you invoked Syria, considering that right now, Russia is still involved in perpetrating war crimes in Syria (via their neo-Nazi PMC) even after the US has withdrawn.

Those who want more have to read beyond the headlines. This isn't about Russia anymore but about the U.S. These countries, many of which were manipulated and even attacked by the U.S., are now engaging in more trade with each other, moving away from the dollar, and no longer obeying the U.S.

So: countries will trade with who they want and that's their right, then. And Ukraine, which was manipulated and attacked by Russia, attempted to shift its trade towards Europe.

....and in response, Russia invaded it.

 

[Absent]

....and in response, Russia invaded it.

It wouldn't have happened if she was wearing a more decent skirt. I blame the one who sold it to her.

 

[Hades]

Manipulation of Ukraine originated from NATO expansion:

Kennan’s Warning on Ukraine

Ambition, insecurity, and the perils of independence

www.foreignaffairs.com

The article is paywalled but phrase of ''the perils of independence'' seems to imply the writer thinks Ukrainian independence should be curtailed to appease Russia.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Let us assume that is true. How does the US being evil justify Russia being evil? Specifically in a way that is against Ukraine, and not the people behind the US's actions.

The United States is the most powerful country on earth and Russia is attempting to secure itself against that power. Ukraine is in the unfortunate position of being the tip of the US spear.

The whole concept of a military industrial complex expresses the often close relationship between national militaries and the defense industries that supply them, but in the UK that relationship isn't particularly strong.

Rosy picture of Europe that you've painted aside...

now that you've clarified that, well, the UK doesn't have a military industrial complex because actually its military industry is tied up supplying the United States, your initial complaint seems extraordinarily shallow and a waste of time. do you just like writing posts to see your user name followed by some scribbling?

should be livid at NATO, principally the US and UK and their military industrial complexes (and their subservient political and media complexes)

anyway.

Why do these countries have Russian speaking minorities?

Same reason there is a Ukrainian-speaking minority in Crimea?

So: countries will trade with who they want and that's their right, then. And Ukraine, which was manipulated and attacked by Russia, attempted to shift its trade towards Europe.

A minority of the population pulled off a coup when their president declined to accept harsh austerity measures in the name of trade with Europe. People like Silvanus bought the idea that neoliberal dismantling of society = democracy because it came packaged in the correct 'decolonial' rhetoric.

 

[Seanchaidh]

On a side note, I enjoy the fact you invoked Syria, considering that right now, Russia is still involved in perpetrating war crimes in Syria (via their neo-Nazi PMC) even after the US has withdrawn.

The United States is still in Syria liberating the oil and gas. They just stopped protecting Rojava from Turkey.

 

[Hades]

Ukraine is in the unfortunate position of being the tip of the US spear.

You mean its in the unfortunate position to be the target of Russia's blood and soil ideology. Russia has historically terrorized eastern Europe long before the US became a great power, and Putin's very open about this history of empire fueling his foreign policy.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You mean its in the unfortunate position to be the target of Russia's blood and soil ideology. Russia has historically terrorized eastern Europe long before the US became a great power, and Putin's very open about this history of empire fueling his foreign policy.

But don't you understand? The United States is the greatest danger the world has ever known! And if every Ukrainian has to die in Russia's righteous quest to protect the world from imperialism, that's just a price someone else has to pay!

 

[Seanchaidh]

You mean its in the unfortunate position to be the target of Russia's blood and soil ideology.

No, not really.

 

[Silvanus]

A minority of the population pulled off a coup when their president declined to accept harsh austerity measures in the name of trade with Europe. People like Silvanus bought the idea that neoliberal dismantling of society = democracy because it came packaged in the correct 'decolonial' rhetoric.

"Dismantling of society", what hysterical hyperbole.

You're not going to get past the fact that the President pursued a policy that remained dismally unpopular in Ukraine, in direct opposition to his own electoral platform. This made him dismally unpopular too-- then the protests, and eventually the President going AWOL.

I hate to tell you this, but in functioning legislative democracies, the legislature is sovereign, and the executive cannot just illegally ignore a binding vote from the legislative house. The vote was unanimous-- including Yanukovich's own party!-- to remove him after he went AWOL. Then free elections were held.

You are solely pushing this dogshit because you want a specific foreign policy followed in Ukraine, and you couldn't give a fuck if it's supported by the population or not. In the pursuit of that you're happy for the executive to illegally suspend legislative democracy, or (failing that) for the policy to be implemented down the barrel of a gun.

Y'know what actually threatens the destruction of society? An insurgency suspending all access to national elections in ~20% of the country, and a far more powerful neighbouring country indiscriminately bombing civilian areas for a year in the pursuit of territory.