Ukraine

[Silvanus]

Let's be more accurate here. Ukraine opposed the Bolshevik revolution and declared independence, and in response the Russian Bolsheviks invaded it and forced it to join the USSR. (Then the Soviets starved a few million Ukrainians for good measure.)

To add to this: there was at least a limited effort to offer Ukraine more independence than it had been afforded under the Russian Empire-- when Lenin devolved various powers to the separate federal republics. Before Stalin brought them again directly under Russian hegemony, turning it into a 'union' in name only, with no equal partners.

...but Putin constantly denounces Lenin's effort to allow the republics self-government, and has insisted it should be comprehensively reversed. So we know where his ambitions lie, and they're back in line with Imperial Russia, in explicit opposition to Lenin's vision of the Union.

 

[ralfy]

Failing to see the relevance of this bizarre history lesson. Nothing gives the US the right to manipulate or bully a sovereign country.

Nothing gives Russia that right, either, yet Russia was doing so much more heavily, and earlier, which you fawningly defend.

But that's what the U.S. has been doing for decades: manipulating, bullying, intervening, and even worse, given events like genocide in places like the Philippines at the turn of nineteenth century. And after WW2 it used a military industrial complex led by neoconservatives coupled with organizations like the IMF and WB led by neoliberalists, leading to more deaths:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

And that's the same U.S. that's arming Ukraine. Its rich profit no matter what happens to the latter:

For Western Weapons, the Ukraine War Is a Beta Test (Published 2022)

Though the battle for Ukraine remains largely a grinding artillery war, new advances in technology and training there are being closely monitored for the ways they are starting to shape combat.

www.nytimes.com

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

with either Ukrainians, the U.S. public via debt, or both paying that rich and their political enablers:

 

[ralfy]

That's nice and all but that doesn't respond to anything I said, which was that NATO expansion isn't so much US Empire building as it is Russia's neighbors all having every right to consider Russia an utterly untrustworthy existential threat, and that the modern Kremlin does nothing to suggest otherwise.

The U.S. War Machine is the biggest in the world, with over 700 military installations worldwide and a budget that's greater than that of multiple military powers combined. It has been engaged in decades of mayhem worldwide, and joined by its NATO allies:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Hence, military adventurism with NATO in Syria, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. That expansionist views have reached a point that they even considered opening shop in Asia:

NATO's delicate balancing act in the Indo-Pacific

Japan and NATO are already working together on new technologies and on efforts to safeguard the new domains of cyber, outer space and other vectors.

www.japantimes.co.jp

One has to be utterly naive not to see this as encirclement.

It considers not only Russia but China as a threat because they together with BRICS and the Global South are creating a multipolar global economy. The U.S. wants a unipolar one, where it remains top dog:

Wolfowitz Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and that's been going on since the early 1990s.

Before that was the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, which called for support for authoritarian regimes that side with the U.S.:

Kirkpatrick Doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and it's connected to the previously mentioned doctrine plus others because they are based on realpolitik, which is the main driver of the U.S. empire.

The gist is that the U.S. needs to protect the dollar in order to maintain decades of borrowing and spending, and the only way to do that is to ensure that the value of the dollar remains high. To do that given a lot of dollar creation, it has to keep other countries weak. And the two policies needed to ensure the latter are the military industrial complex and structural adjustment via the IMF and WB.

But the Global South has become stronger,

The rise of the global middle class

Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty but can the middle class continue to grow?

www.bbc.com

leading to a multipolar world that is becoming less dependent on the dollar and on the U.S., including G-7, and that's something that the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the the country's total wealth

The richest 10% own 70% of the country’s wealth

The wealthiest Americans control a growing slice of the wealth pie.

finance.yahoo.com

can't afford to see happen.

 

[ralfy]

Let's be more accurate here. Ukraine opposed the Bolshevik revolution and declared independence, and in response the Russian Bolsheviks invaded it and forced it to join the USSR. (Then the Soviets starved a few million Ukrainians for good measure.)

For details on that history and more, see

 

[Thaluikhain]

That the US has vested interests in wanting Russia to fail is clear. That the military-industrial complex likes being funded to arm Ukraine, and that the way the war progresses will be keenly viewed by many is also clear.

That doesn't mean arming Ukraine against Russia is a bad thing, though. You can modify the "broken clock is right twice a day" line if you like, but the right thing and the desirable thing have a certain amount of overlap here.

 

[Silvanus]

But that's what the U.S. has been doing for decades: manipulating, bullying, intervening, and even worse [...]

We know. And in *Ukraine* (the topic of this thread), its what Russia has been doing far more than the US, and for longer.

Repeatedly regurgitating a list of American evils from around the world doesn't change that. Its pure deflection.

the 10 pct of Americans that own 70 pct of the the country's total wealth

You again omit the fact that 10% of Russians own *85%* of that country's wealth, or that the Gini Coefficient in *Ukraine* was actually one of the much better ones. So you harp about internal wealth disparity, while fawning over an even more unequal state trying to invade and annex a more equal one.

 

[Hades]

The U.S. War Machine is the biggest in the world, with over 700 military installations worldwide and a budget that's greater than that of multiple military powers combined. It has been engaged in decades of mayhem worldwide, and joined by its NATO allies:

That's nice and all but unlike Russia's neighbors those of the US don't need to fear having their lands taken and their citizens butchered. Nor do we have any Mexican presidents on the record who got poisoned by Americans for not being servile enough.

One has to be utterly naive not to see this as encirclement.

That still hardly changes anything. Russia might be annoyed by having its neighbors under NATO protection but that problem wouldn't have been there if Russia hadn't kept terrorizing all its neighbors. If Russia gets so annoyed about its neighbors being in NATO then why does it keep making it clear they'll subjugate any neighbor who doesn't have NATO protection? Besides the theory of ''encirclement'' doesn't add up since the ''danger'' Putin is most vocal about is a ''color revolution'' which doesn't involve NATO troops. Also said color revolution could be twarted by the Kremlin just trying to be a legitimate government instead of a gaggle or robber barons. And what's the use of encirclement if the encircled party has nukes?

Also considering Mearsheimer has been completely discredited on this subject it makes little sense quoting him. ''Boohoo the west didn't sacrifice all Russia's neighbors to appease the Kremlin. Woe is them''

 

[Dalisclock]

 

[ralfy]

That the US has vested interests in wanting Russia to fail is clear. That the military-industrial complex likes being funded to arm Ukraine, and that the way the war progresses will be keenly viewed by many is also clear.

That doesn't mean arming Ukraine against Russia is a bad thing, though. You can modify the "broken clock is right twice a day" line if you like, but the right thing and the desirable thing have a certain amount of overlap here.

The problem is that the argument also works the other way round: it's not a bad thing if it's considered part of realpolitik, but that also justifies Russian invasion.

 

[ralfy]

We know. And in *Ukraine* (the topic of this thread), its what Russia has been doing far more than the US, and for longer.

Repeatedly regurgitating a list of American evils from around the world doesn't change that. Its pure deflection.



You again omit the fact that 10% of Russians own *85%* of that country's wealth, or that the Gini Coefficient in *Ukraine* was actually one of the much better ones. So you harp about internal wealth disparity, while fawning over an even more unequal state trying to invade and annex a more equal one.

Keep in mind that back in 2010, Obama himself called for Russia to join NATO, and that was because Russia was helping the U.S. over Afghanistan. Later, the U.S. took that back when Russia aided the Syrian government.

There's no deflection involved here because the same U.S. that was manipulating Ukraine and even Russia is now arming Ukraine, and just like its view of Israel, expects Ukraine to pay back for that "investment," and more.

Your last point says it all because it implies that the Russia is no different from the U.S. It's like Alien vs. Predator, with Ukraine the victim.

 

[ralfy]

That's nice and all but unlike Russia's neighbors those of the US don't need to fear having their lands taken and their citizens butchered. Nor do we have any Mexican presidents on the record who got poisoned by Americans for not being servile enough.



That still hardly changes anything. Russia might be annoyed by having its neighbors under NATO protection but that problem wouldn't have been there if Russia hadn't kept terrorizing all its neighbors. If Russia gets so annoyed about its neighbors being in NATO then why does it keep making it clear they'll subjugate any neighbor who doesn't have NATO protection? Besides the theory of ''encirclement'' doesn't add up since the ''danger'' Putin is most vocal about is a ''color revolution'' which doesn't involve NATO troops. Also said color revolution could be twarted by the Kremlin just trying to be a legitimate government instead of a gaggle or robber barons. And what's the use of encirclement if the encircled party has nukes?

Also considering Mearsheimer has been completely discredited on this subject it makes little sense quoting him. ''Boohoo the west didn't sacrifice all Russia's neighbors to appease the Kremlin. Woe is them''

That's because the U.S. attacks countries that aren't even its neighbors. As for butchery, nothing beats the War Machine when it comes to that:

Costs of War

The Costs of War Project is a team of 35 scholars, legal experts, human rights practitioners, and physicians, which began its work in 2011. We use research and a public website to facilitate debate about the costs of the post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

watson.brown.edu

Of course, it doesn't change anything. Top dog remains so only by engaging in encirclement.

As for Mearsheimer being completely discredited, who's claiming that? Only a forum anon like you.

 

[ralfy]

NATO chief admits new bullets won't arrive in Ukraine for years

It could take up to 36 months for the ammunition from a new NATO deal to become available.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Thaluikhain]

The problem is that the argument also works the other way round: it's not a bad thing if it's considered part of realpolitik, but that also justifies Russian invasion.

In no way does it justify Russian invasion. Doing a good thing for bad reasons is not the same as doing a bad thing for bad reasons.

 

[bluegate]

Did Sean get a second account in an attempt to not be instantly ignored?

There have been plenty of attempts from "the west" to have normalized relations with Russia. Them invading their neighbor because that neighbor would rather trade with other people is not on the US.

 

[Hades]

That's because the U.S. attacks countries that aren't even its neighbors. As for butchery, nothing beats the War Machine when it comes to that:

Not really. The US might be comfortable with civilian casualties but its not the direct goal of the invasion like it is with Russia. Collateral damage and maliciously hunting down civilians to torture and kill are quite different things.

Of course, it doesn't change anything. Top dog remains so only by engaging in encirclement.

And Russia seems to imagine it can only be a top dog again by dragging an unwilling Eastern Europe into its ''empire'' and then terrorizing them.

As for Mearsheimer being completely discredited, who's claiming that?

Kinda speaks for itself if he keeps spreading Kremlin propaganda and pretending that the world not sacrificing all of eastern Europe to the Kremlin was somehow ''offensive'' to Russia.

 

[Ag3ma]

Keep in mind that back in 2010, Obama himself called for Russia to join NATO, and that was because Russia was helping the U.S. over Afghanistan. Later, the U.S. took that back when Russia aided the Syrian government.

Back in the day, Russia was increasingly looking like a constructive partner moving towards the West. Putin was pragmatic about NATO: early in his presidency he talks of not exactly Russia in NATO, but as a sort of associate in a wider alliance structure; although reportedly he asked to join NATO in private. He's even on record at a press conference early 2000s saying Ukraine was free to arrange its own affairs with NATO. Russia didn't raise a squeak about the Baltic States joining NATO. Russia itself seemed to be working on and embracing liberal democracy. Medvedev was president, and saying all the right things to make everything think things would be amicable.

But it wasn't really the West that walked that back. Putin eventually found that liberalism and democracy threatened to get in the way of him ruling, and so he suppressed them and any other elements resistant to his rule, leaning into hardline conservatism and authoritarianism. Going in that direction, there was no way Russia was going to fit into NATO. For their part, the EU and USA to a large extent carried on trying to maintain trade and dialogue with Russia.

It seems to me that it was Russia that decisively changed direction and chose conflict rather than co-operation.

 

[Silvanus]

Keep in mind that back in 2010, Obama himself called for Russia to join NATO, and that was because Russia was helping the U.S. over Afghanistan. Later, the U.S. took that back when Russia aided the Syrian government.

There's no deflection involved here because the same U.S. that was manipulating Ukraine and even Russia is now arming Ukraine, and just like its view of Israel, expects Ukraine to pay back for that "investment," and more.

Your last point says it all because it implies that the Russia is no different from the U.S. It's like Alien vs. Predator, with Ukraine the victim.

No different, except one has invaded and annexed and slaughtered them en masse, and the other hasn't. And yes, it's deflection to excuse or justify that by pointing to the (much much much lesser) manipulations of another country.

 

[Hades]

There's no deflection involved here because the same U.S. that was manipulating Ukraine and even Russia is now arming Ukraine, and just like its view of Israel, expects Ukraine to pay back for that "investment," and more.

How is the US manipulating Ukraine though? By acknowledging its an independent country perhaps? By saying its not a vassal nation of Russia? By implying Ukraine and the EU have the right to make trade deals without kissing Putin's ring first?

 

[tstorm823]

Did Sean get a second account in an attempt to not be instantly ignored?

Yes, but not that one.

 

[ralfy]

In no way does it justify Russian invasion. Doing a good thing for bad reasons is not the same as doing a bad thing for bad reasons.

My aim in not to justify Russian invasion but to explain what led to it. And it turns out that what led to it is also what was working with Russia and is now trying to stop it.

In which case, were seeing both sides "[d]oing a good thing for bad reasons" and the opposite.