Ukraine

[ralfy]

Yes, Russia was weak. Actually, it still is.

But from the instant the USSR broke apart, Russia set about maintaining forms of control. For instance, the reason Transnistria is autonomous from Moldova is that upon the dissolution of the USSR, Russian army units blocked Moldovan control of the area. Russia has subsequently suppressed an internal independence movement with shocking brutality, invaded at least two of its neighbours, and blatantly attempted to control others through fossil fuels, destabilisation, massive political and media interferences, etc.

Russia has never stopped being or acting like an imperial power. It's just having a lot more trouble holding onto its imperial possessions than it used to.



Trite and inaccurate.

Most of the people in this forum have a reasonably consistent attutide to imperialism: it's bad. They opposed the West in Afghanistan and Iraq and they oppose Russia in Ukraine. There is nothing like the defence of the USA that you have fantasised.

That said, I personally think the USA really is a great deal better than Russia in most respects - rule of law, human rights, etc.

Russia tries to control its neighbors. China, too.

Those two are amateurs compared to the U.S., which has a military budget larger than the combined budget of several powers, and uses them to commit mayhem on a global scale:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

This brings me to my last point: you argue that most are against the invasion of Iraq and of Afghanistan, and yet find nothing wrong with funding Ukraine. What's the problem with that view:

The attack on Ukraine stemmed from manipulation of Ukraine and NATO enlargement, all part of the same U.S. strategy of controlling, destabilizing, manipulating, and attacking other countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Military aid sent to Ukraine is meant to support the same U.S. military industrial complex that profited from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even the Wall Street banks and financiers that Zelensky is now dealing with tried to profit from those two invasions via Basra and oil and mineral exploration rights.

That's why I compared your views with those of Reagan and Bush; like them, you don't see this issue as complex and nuanced. Instead, you assume that Russia attacked for imperial reasons, the U.S. is helping for altruistic reasons, there was no manipulation whatsoever, Zelensky is an independent and democratic leader, and nothing more should be considered about this.

And yet more countries are now moving away from the U.S. dollar and acting independently of the U.S., with Japan and several European countries now going against U.S. insistence on sanctions on Russia. Meanwhile, leaked documents being investigated by the U.S. government reveal that the press had been lying about the war (i.e., Ukraine is winning), that the U.S. was spying on its own allies, etc.

As for rule of law, human rights, etc., you must be talking about another planet:

FROM WOUNDED KNEE TO YEMEN – Zoltán Grossman

The fact that you mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan should be considered. Don't forget Libya, Syria, etc., not to mention that the U.S. routinely works with countries like Saudi Arabia and China, and sees realpolitik and profit as the bottom line.

 

[ralfy]

And this is where we've reached the pure projection stage.

See, that's actually your problem. It's just that rather than engaging in US exceptionalism, you're engaging in "anti-US" exceptionalism. It's the exact same imperialist philosophy (ignoring the agency/sovereignty of smaller nations, believing in spheres of influence, believing might makes right), but the core foundation is reversed to be "anti-US is good and everyone else isn't".

What you either can't or won't comprehend is that most of this forum is (beyond a few extremists such as yourself) anti-imperialist regardless of the nation. The US is bad when it engages in imperialism. Similarly, Russia, China, France, the UK, etc are all bad when they engage in imperialism. When a country takes imperialist actions, it does not deserve a freebie (or, in this case, pages upon pages of apologetics) just because they happen to be acting against US interests while doing so.

The point isn't whether or not a country is imperialist but which one has the ability to commit mayhem on a global stage, and why. There's only one country capable of doing that, and it has reached a point where not only I but even its most liberal President said so:

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

That country engaged in NATO enlargement starting in the 1990s to provoke Russia, then manipulated Ukraine in 2004 onward, is now using the same war machine that attacked and profited from military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and based on false flags, to arm Ukraine, and then wants to profit from it, too, in the same way it tried the same stunt in other countries it attacked or destabilized:

Zelenskyy, BlackRock CEO Fink agree to coordinate Ukraine investment

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and BlackRock CEO Larry Fink have agreed to coordinate investment in rebuilding Ukraine, Kyiv announced Wednesday

www.cnbc.com

and over what? To ensure sole superpower status via dependence on the dollar for trade, something that more countries are now challenging?

A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West – DW – 04/10/2023

Predictions about the BRICS countries as the fastest growing economies haven't quite panned out. Instead, the alliance is now offering a diplomatic forum and development financing, outside of the Western mainstream.

www.dw.com

More of its allies, including Japan, France, and several European countries, are now going against it. What will the U.S. do next? Probably send some nuclear subs to the Middle East as show of strength?

U.S. Navy sends guided-missile submarine to Middle East

The U.S. Navy said on Saturday a nuclear-powered guided-missile submarine was operating in the Middle East in support of the Bahrain-based U.S. Fifth Fleet.

www.reuters.com

while involved in more saber-rattling in Asia, with using the press to keep pressing to the public the point that China plans to invade Taiwan?

Why does one get this feeling that the U.S. does not want peace but war, and in multiple fronts?

 

[ralfy]

You say it would.

Russian expansion would have included Ukraine. Ukrainians did not allow for that.



Yes yes, I've heard this repeated over and over again, based on a relatively tiny amount of US money in Ukraine. Always overlooking the fact that Russian finance, military, and influence in Ukraine dwarfs it.



^ irrelevant blather.



....but you're not saying 'neither'. You're explicitly endorsing one specific coercive power invading, annexing and slaughtering an independent country.

What is the basis of that invasion? And what is the reaction to the war so far?

From what we gathered, Kennan and others warned the U.S. that if they meddled in affairs involving Russia and Ukraine, and tried to manipulate both through NATO enlargement and regime change, then war would take place. That's exactly what happened.

And what is the reaction to the war so far? More countries are moving away from the U.S. and even questioning U.S. involvement.

So much for "irrelevant blather".

 

[ralfy]

How did I "miss" that exactly? I'm not the one holding him up as correct, so I'm not required to be in line with his thinking.

You, on the other hand, are the one that brought him up and lauded him... while simultaneously holding a position that's diametrically opposed to his.

According to Kennan, the U.S. should not meddle in what happens with Russia and Ukraine, because if it does then Russia will consider that a threat, and that will cause problems for Ukraine. In addition, Kennan argued that the U.S. should not engage in encirclement of Russia through NATO enlargement because that might lead to an even greater war.

Kennan is now being proven right.

Kennan’s Warning on Ukraine

Ambition, insecurity, and the perils of independence

www.foreignaffairs.com

George Kennan, the remarkable U.S. diplomat and probing observer of international relations, is famous for forecasting the collapse of the Soviet Union. Less well known is his warning in 1948 that no Russian government would ever accept Ukrainian independence. Foreseeing a deadlocked struggle between Moscow and Kyiv, Kennan made detailed suggestions at the time about how Washington should deal with a conflict that pitted an independent Ukraine against Russia. He returned to this subject half a century later. Kennan, then in his 90s, cautioned that the eastward expansion of NATO would doom democracy in Russia and ignite another Cold War.

From 2014:

Kennan's revenge: remembering the reasons for the Cold War | Robert Skidelsky

Robert Skidelsky: the goal of Western policy today should be to find the means to work with Russia to stop Ukraine from being torn apart

www.theguardian.com

These Western thrusts undoubtedly inspired Russian paranoia, reflected today in Kremlin-fuelled conspiracy theories about Ukraine. And, just as Kennan warned against a foreign policy that was "utopian in its expectation, legalistic in its concept … moralistic … and self-righteous," the goal of Western policy today should be to find the means to work with Russia to stop Ukraine from being torn apart.

What would George Kennan say about Ukraine?

Looking back at how Kennan described containment, and the policy prescriptions it entailed, does not necessarily offer the roadmap one might expect.

thehill.com

Kennan’s critique of a divided Europe survived even the fall of the Soviet Union. Writing in 1997 at age 92, he declared that expanding NATO to the east “ would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

“Such a decision,” he went on, “may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations.”

 

[ralfy]

It has. No need to be shy about it. They didn't even move out of the founding fathers era without trying to anex Canada.

Though historically its (non Indian neighbors) had significantly less to fear from the US than eastern Europe did from Russia.



At the time the Soviets were busy terrorizing eastern Europe so I'm not sure we can hold it against Reagan for dubbing them so. Besides Russia ''defending itself from America'' in practice always results in Russia's neighbors having to hand over territory or sovereignty to Russia. As such no nation is obligated to help Russia ''defend'' itself because those nations will all be the first casualties of a secure Russia.

Besides what was so wrong about Russia's place in the post cold war world that they were ''forced'' to start a giant war and enact genocide against their neighbors? Russia was allowed to get filthy rich from gas and oil trades, while the west even looked the other way at Russia yet again invading their neighbors for a while. There was no accute danger or injustice for Russia to respond to. The only real restraint the west imposed on Russia was that it wasn't allowed to subjugate areas outside of Russia's legitimate borders and even that one proved pretty damned negotiable until very recently. Hardly the Carthaginian peace Russia simps insist Russia suffered under.

In which case, we're now looking at two Russias, or two United States if you prefer that. But one has greater killing capacity than the other and also holds the official narrative that it's not an imperial power and the other one is.

Hence, an attack on Ukraine is perceived as a grave threat to humanity. An attack on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc? Crickets.

Meanwhile, how are more countries responding now to the sole superpower of the world?

 

[ralfy]

Wait a second, I hadn't actually properly investigated that link until now, but it's extremely obvious that the content doesn't support the headline.

* the article states that the actual position they're recording is that the war should end as soon as possible, even if that means some form of territorial concession by Ukraine. It explicitly says that *does not* translate to support for Russia-- the headline is categorically wrong and highly misleading.

* Globally, support for one's own country sanctioning Russia stands at about 45% against 25% against. That includes the global south.

* only 5 countries voted against the resolution for Russia to immediately withdraw. The vote was overwhelmingly in favour, including in the global south, particularly in South America.

So, the "global south" actually doesn't support Russian invasion and annexation. That's horseshit.

Indeed, but read the article carefully. It states that countries in the Middle East recall U.S. military interventions while countries in Africa recall imperialist ambitions. Meanwhile, I posted other related articles:

MSN

www.msn.com

A new world order? BRICS nations offer alternative to West – DW – 04/10/2023

Predictions about the BRICS countries as the fastest growing economies haven't quite panned out. Instead, the alliance is now offering a diplomatic forum and development financing, outside of the Western mainstream.

www.dw.com

The gist is that the Global South are now moving away from the U.S. sphere of influence.

Meanwhile, more allies are doing similar, with Japan buying oil from Russia, European countries buying oil from Russia via India, France now encouraging other European countries to go against the U.S.

Macron sparks anger by saying Europe should not be ‘vassal’ in US-China clash

Alarm on both sides of Atlantic as French president warns against being drawn into any Taiwan conflict

www.theguardian.com

Emmanuel Macron has flown into a storm of criticism after he said Europe should not become a “vassal” and must avoid being drawn into any conflict between the US and China over Taiwan.

...

Norbert Röttgen, a German centre-right MP who is a member and former chair of the Bundestag’s foreign affairs committee, said Macron had turned his trip to China into “a PR coup for Xi and a foreign policy disaster” for Europe. “With his idea of sovereignty, which he defines in demarcation rather than partnership with the USA, he is increasingly isolating himself in Europe.”

and more:

'Petrodollar' at risk as TotalEnergies sells LNG to China in yuan

Chinese and French energy companies this week finalised the first-ever deal on liquified natural gas (LNG) in China settled in the renminbi yuan currency. The trade, involving 65,000 tons of LNG imported…

www.rfi.fr

Chinese and French energy companies this week finalised the first-ever deal on liquified natural gas (LNG) in China settled in the renminbi yuan currency. The trade, involving 65,000 tons of LNG imported from the United Arab Emirates, marks a major step in Beijing's attempts to undermine the US dollar as universal "petrodollar" for gas and oil trade.

You'll find even more news involving Brazil, Mexico, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, and more.

Related:

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/13/poland-pm-questions-france-germany-ukraine

Why it matters: Although several European leaders have sought to downplay any divisions over those two key issues — the path forward on Ukraine and relations with China — Morawiecki expressed deep reservations about the positions of certain "Western European countries." Asked specifically about France and Germany by Axios, Morawiecki cast doubts on the commitment of both European powers to ensure a Ukrainian "victory."

 

[Silvanus]

What is the basis of that invasion? And what is the reaction to the war so far?

The basis for the invasion was territorial gain and an effort to enact regime change by force. You can tell because Russian soldiers themselves attested after the failed attack on Kyiv that they had been ordered to take the capital and overthrow the government.

From what we gathered, Kennan and others warned the U.S. that if they meddled in affairs involving Russia and Ukraine, and tried to manipulate both through NATO enlargement and regime change, then war would take place. That's exactly what happened.

In that case, you obviously haven't comprehended what he actually said, and what your own article points out. He said that Russia would seek to reclaim Ukraine sooner or later regardless.

And what is the reaction to the war so far? More countries are moving away from the U.S. and even questioning U.S. involvement.

Except that's bollocks, isn't it? Russian invasion is almost universally condemned, including in the global south.

 

[Silvanus]

The gist is that the Global South are now moving away from the U.S. sphere of influence.

A trend that had broadly been happening for quite a few years before-- driven primarily by China and India.

What the hell does all this have to do with the Russian invasion of Ukraine? You're just lumping it all together to conflate a global trade shift with support for an unrelated war of aggression.

....also, I can't help but notice you keep posting the same damn links. You've posted one of them at least four times in the same thread now. What's going on with that? You've shown already that you're not even properly comprehending what they say anyway.

 

[Ag3ma]

You're just repeating my points.

The problem isn't "due to the harsh realities of an ageing population" but the U.S. borrowing and spending heavily since the early 190s:

It's unfunded liabilities are in large part the result of an ageing population, because that part of spending will need to increase above current spending to cover the demographic change.

It's current debts are due to willful borrowing without bothering to cover it through revenue. However, I would draw your attention to the following graph, which shows debt repayments as a percent of GDP (national debt only):

Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product

Graph and download economic data for Federal Outlays: Interest as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYOIGDA188S) from 1940 to 2023 about outlays, federal, percent, interest, GDP, and USA.

fred.stlouisfed.org

The debt is much higher now, but the cost to service it is not, because interest rates are much lower. The same principle applies to non-governmental debt too. The mortgage:income ratio of households has increased, but because the ability to service the debt is vastly higher when interest rates are lower. This is why borrowing is associated with low interest rates.

Your view of economics does seem to be mercantilist, that debt and trade deficits are necessarily bad. But this is simply not true - or more specifically, it depends on circumstances, and the current circumstances that the USA is in, it is not a problem.

 

[Ag3ma]

Those two are amateurs compared to the U.S., which has a military budget larger than the combined budget of several powers, and uses them to commit mayhem on a global scale:

They aren't "amateurs". They're just weaker.

That's why I compared your views with those of Reagan and Bush; like them, you don't see this issue as complex and nuanced. Instead, you assume that Russia attacked for imperial reasons, the U.S. is helping for altruistic reasons, there was no manipulation whatsoever, Zelensky is an independent and democratic leader, and nothing more should be considered about this.

Stop right there.

This is all an assumption in your head. There are 200 pages of this thread, and if you'd been reading it from scratch, you wouldn't need to make that inaccurate assumption. I would suggest that this is the sort of assumption made by people who think they have a special insight and simply start off a discussion assuming that whoever they are speaking to is just one of the patriotically uninformed sheeple on Twitter.

No-one here is blind to the complexities. No-one is unaware that the USA and EU are cynically self-interested countries that want to expand their sphere of influence, that they pursue this through all manner of channels (diplomatic, political, economic, media, intelligence, occasionally military, etc.). No-one is unaware that EU and NATO expansion was viewed with high concern by Russia and raised tension.

Where, I think, most people here stand as a central point is that Ukraine is a sovereign country whose people should be allowed to choose their own destiny. We've read all the attempts to ignore or deligitimise Ukrainian self-determination: the same insinuations about Zelenskyy, oligarchs, Western manipulation, blah blah blah. We reject treating Ukraine and its people merely as pawns or abstract irrelevances. Yeah, there are problems, the world is an imperfect place and Western governments aren't saints. But none of this outweighs the central point of Ukraine as a sovereign nation whose people merit self-determination. This goes many times over in the context that anything manipulative or coercive the West has done in Ukraine, Russia has done much more and worse.

I believe this is what it means to truly stand with Ukraine: to try to think about the Ukrainians and what they want, not see them as a sideshow in some wider ideological anti-capitalist struggle or anti-American hatefest.

 

[Silvanus]

Aleksei Navalny has lost 8kg in two weeks, and is suffering from acute stomach pain. The penal colony authorities continue to refuse him access to hospital, and are repeatedly moving him back and forth from solitary punishment cells.

His lawyers now believe he is being slowly poisoned. The Russian government already poisoned Navalny once before, with Novichok in 2020.

Alexei Navalny in ‘critical’ situation after possible poisoning, says ally

Russian opposition leader said to have had severe stomach pains, with ambulance being called to penal colony

www.theguardian.com

 

[Absent]

Aleksei Navalny has lost 8kg in two weeks, and is suffering from acute stomach pain. The penal colony authorities continue to refuse him access to hospital, and are repeatedly moving him back and forth from solitary punishment cells.

His lawyers now believe he is being slowly poisoned. The Russian government already poisoned Navalny once before, with Novichok in 2020.

Alexei Navalny in ‘critical’ situation after possible poisoning, says ally

Russian opposition leader said to have had severe stomach pains, with ambulance being called to penal colony

www.theguardian.com

Yes but ralfy would claim that it's how politics work in the US.

 

[meiam]

Leak suspect appears in court as US spells out its case

A Massachusetts Air National Guardsman has appeared in court, accused in the leak of highly classified military documents. The guardsman, Jack Teixeira, did not enter a plea at Friday's hearing in Boston and was returned to detention pending his next appearance — next week. Meanwhile...

apnews.com

Wow the details are really as dumb as it sounds, he was just a dump teenager young adults trying to brag in a group chat, maybe we should go trough the full 200 page of this discussion, maybe someone leaked stuff in here...

I do hope we learn more about why this 21 year old had access to this kind of stuff. Is it just laying around for anyone to pick up? Wonder if in the russian equivalent people are also sharing documents like that?

 

[Satinavian]

I do hope we learn more about why this 21 year old had access to this kind of stuff. Is it just laying around for anyone to pick up? Wonder if in the russian equivalent people are also sharing documents like that?

So far the Russians didn't have such kind of leak. However they failed the "need to know" principle in the other direction a couple of times. A lot of people didn't get the information they needed at all even though it was theoretically available in their organisation. Led to a couple of embarrassing blunders.

Of course Russia also had problems with missing secure communication equippment and using smartphones/the open internet instead, but that is another story.

 

[Avnger]

I do hope we learn more about why this 21 year old had access to this kind of stuff. Is it just laying around for anyone to pick up? Wonder if in the russian equivalent people are also sharing documents like that?

It's important to remember that most of the military's day-to-day is carried out by people younger than 27. This covers junior enlisted through junior NCOs as well as junior officers. A 21 year old who enlisted at 18 has fully trained and settled into their career, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for an intelligence service member (this airman's job) to have and require access to classified information. The real question and issue is less why did this airman have access to the info and more how was he able to remove it from the secure systems it resides in without triggering red flags; major gaps evidently need to be addressed there.

6 facts about the U.S. military and its changing demographics

The demographic makeup of the country's active-duty force has changed over time, and those changes tend to reflect trends in the broader society.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[Dalisclock]

It's important to remember that most of the military's day-to-day is carried out by people younger than 27. This covers junior enlisted through junior NCOs as well as junior officers. A 21 year old who enlisted at 18 has fully trained and settled into their career, and it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for an intelligence service member (this airman's job) to have and require access to classified information. The real question and issue is less why did this airman have access to the info and more how was he able to remove it from the secure systems it resides in; major gaps evidently need to be addressed there.

6 facts about the U.S. military and its changing demographics

The demographic makeup of the country's active-duty force has changed over time, and those changes tend to reflect trends in the broader society.

www.pewresearch.org

This.

I used to Recruit for the US Navy. High Schoolers and those just out of High School were our target demographic(for a ton of reasons) and while it's possible to enlist up till like 35, it's harder and harder to get people to join the older they are(again, for lots of reasons). I was 24 when I joined and I was one of the oldest people in my basic training division, with the rest being in their early 20s or teens.

The military wants to grab-em young and hopefully keep them in. Though ironically, getting out and trying to get back in is a giant pain in the butt and the military makes it very hard for prior service to go back into the military, even the same branch. I forget why but it was basically office politics bullshit about how numbers get counted and shit.

Sorry, I can talk about this shit all damn day. I didn't enjoy the job so it's my duty to share the misery with others.

 

[Silvanus]

I used to Recruit for the US Navy. High Schoolers and those just out of High School were our target demographic(for a ton of reasons) and while it's possible to enlist up till like 35, it's harder and harder to get people to join the older they are(again, for lots of reasons). I was 24 when I joined and I was one of the oldest people in my basic training division, with the rest being in their early 20s or teens.

I really hope you don't mind my saying this, because from my interactions with you, you seem to be an agreeable, pleasant bloke with a moral compass.

But this paragraph is bleak.

 

[Dalisclock]

I really hope you don't mind my saying this, because from my interactions with you, you seem to be an agreeable, pleasant bloke with a moral compass.

But this paragraph is bleak.

I don't mind. I hated recrutiing. I didn't have much choice in the matter. I did my best to do it as morally as I could considering the circumstances, which meant I was average at best at the job(I won one award due to a perfect storm of getting 5 recruits one month that was very much the exception).

I was so glad when I was given an option to go elsewhere and I took it. I spent my last year in the USN working in the IT office at the Recruiting district but that was heaven compared to the previous two of Navy Recruiting Hell.

There are recruiters who do act ethically, but I knew several who got caught doing shit they knew they shouldn't have and got punished for it.

Unless you meant in a different way and I misunderstood.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

There are recruiters who do act ethically, but I knew several who got caught doing shit they knew they shouldn't have and got punished for it.

Fun fact: Way back in the last millennium, I entered Army Initial Entry Training for the National Guard on the promise of financial assistance for college. (I didn't make it through.) Turned out my recruiter forgot all about the financial assistance thing and I wouldn't have gotten it if I'd served.

 

[meiam]

Still surprising that someone can go from being recruited to having access to top level stuff in just a few years at most (18 to 21, maybe?).

I imagine being a recruiter isn't fun, but I imagine working in any big company in HR must be a soul draining experience. Well except some of the people you recruit might die because of it, sooo....