Ukraine

[ralfy]

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.



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.


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.

You sound like Ron Reagan and Dubya: it's just collateral damage.

Russia is not a top dog; China is. And the only "empire" existing right now involves that unipolar global economy.

The world is "not sacrificing all of eastern Europe to the Kremlin." Rather, the U.S. has been encircling Russia and China by influencing parts of eastern Europe through three ways: continued use of the dollar for trade, structural adjustment coupled with U.S. neoliberal policies, and setting up military installations.

The U.S. has been doing the same in Asia and the Middle East. That's why Mearsheimer explains that the goal of the U.S. is to control those three regions.

U.S. politicians have known this since the 1980s, but since the early 2000s several countries in those regions became economically stronger and are now answering back. The result is a growing multipolar global economy, and the U.S. does not want that.

 

[ralfy]

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.

Russia was the same throughout. Obama thought that he could manipulate it because it helped over Afghanistan, and then changed his views because of Syria.

Put simply, the U.S. is a warmongering country whose strength derives from the use of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and what it needs are not "constructive partners" that "embrace liberal democracy" but do so in favor of the U.S. That's why for decades the same U.S. worked with China and Saudi Arabia, and set up or supported dictatorships in places like Iran, the Philippines, and Indonesia. That's also why the U.S. engaged in military adventurism in the Middle East and Afghanistan, and has been arming various countries against its rivals. It even played both sides, like arming Israel but also Saudi Arabia, and arming Taiwan but not recognizing its sovereignty in order to appease its trading partner China.

One has to be incredibly naive to actually believe that the U.S. and NATO want peace or even insist on a liberal democracy for its own sake.

 

[ralfy]

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.

The U.S. tried that three times recently, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, but it wasn't interested in annexation because of what happened decades ago in the Philippines, where it turned parts of the island into a "howling wilderness" and where the first of two instances of concentration camps first emerged (the other was in South Africa, and during the same period), and because it's supposed to be some shining beacon of "freedom and democracy," as seen in U.S. exceptionalism.

"Collateral damage" still took place, though:

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

which is why it now chooses to focus on proxy wars, and let others do the fighting, which in this case includes Ukraine. Meanwhile, for some time, it still bought uranium from Russia while the rest of the "defensive" alliance bought fossil fuels from the same. Hence, limit support to airstrikes and sending more arms and funny money, which makes the War Machine happy (the Machine profits no matter who wins; what matters is that there's always conflict).

It's like arming Taiwan while not recognizing its sovereignty in order to appease its trading partner China, or arming Israel but also Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia.

That's the idea of "lesser" manipulation.

 

[ralfy]

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?

See the Counterpunch article shared earlier and Mearsheimer's lecture. Also, articles from Friedman about Kennan, the doctrines mentioned earlier, etc.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Yes, but not that one.

news to me

 

[Silvanus]

The U.S. tried that three times recently, in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan [...]

Not in Ukraine, the subject of this thread. Only Russia tried that. But you still want to equivocate.

 

[tstorm823]

@Absent certainly does seem to be absent lately... hasn't made a single post since October 11th, the exact day a different user rejoined their favorite thread after months of hiatus.

He also seemed to appear quite suddenly to defend Russia at a time another user seemed to back away after getting dogpiled in this thread.

And his title is "And twice is the only way to live."

No accusations here, I'm sure it's all coincidence.

 

[Hades]

The world is "not sacrificing all of eastern Europe to the Kremlin." Rather, the U.S. has been encircling Russia and China by influencing parts of eastern Europe through three ways: continued use of the dollar for trade, structural adjustment coupled with U.S. neoliberal policies, and setting up military installations.

Indeed the world has not sacrificed all Eastern Europe the Kremlin and it pisses Russia(and Mearsheimer) off. Russia wants its neighbor's out of NATO so it can subjugate, oppress and ultimately conquer them. Just compare how it treats its NATO neighbors compared to its non NATO ones. Ukraine isn't in NATO so Russia felt itself free to poison their presidents, try to make them into a puppet nation, illegally annex their territory and ultimately invade. They felt they could do this because Ukraine didn't have protection, but since Poland or Latvia DO have that protection they were unable to do all those things to them. That's why Russia is so angry that most of eastern Europe is in NATO, that's why shortly before the war they demanded NATO forces retreat back to its cold war borders. Its because NATO prevents Russia from treating the rest of Eastern Europe as they treat Ukraine.

Russia is not a top dog; China is. And the only "empire" existing right now involves that unipolar global economy.

Indeed. Russia is not top dog any longer and post Imperial anxiety causes it to act out in increasingly unhinged ways to try and regain its ''top dog'' position.

See the Counterpunch article shared earlier and Mearsheimer's lecture.

And what he said was ''Russia isn't allowed to oppress its neighbors. The world isn't sacrificing all of eastern Russia to the Kremlin! Woe is them!''

But what Mearsheimer and other Kremlin stooges never quite manage to explain is WHY Russia is so inherently special that it deserves a unique Imperial status. Why is Russia so special that it deserves a sphere of influence spanning all of eastern Europe and why should the sovereignty of those countries and the well being of everyone living there be automatically subordinate to the Kremlin's whims?

Is it because ''America bad''? That certainly plays a part but even then it remains strange that these factors only apply to Russia. Not even China, the far larger adversary to the US is given this unique status. No one seriously argues that China should literally own Korea and Mongolia or that Europe isn't able to make any trade deal in Asia without the blessing of Xi Jinping. The unique status the ''America bad!'' folks give to Russia somehow isn't given to China or Iran.

Is it because Russia is just ''afraid'' of the big mean US? Why should that matter? Russia's neighbors are all rightfully afraid of Russia butchering them but according to these ''America bad'' people those countries should just bend over and allow Russia to rape them for fun and profit. Their fears aren't taken into account at all, or are laughed out of the room to appease Russia's feelings. Europe is afraid of Russia but we're not given the green light to annex Belarus and Kalingengrad. Europe's afraid of immigration but no one is saying Europe should enslave north Africa to go fix it.

 

[ralfy]

Not in Ukraine, the subject of this thread. Only Russia tried that. But you still want to equivocate.

The problem is that the country that's arming Ukraine and manipulated it earlier did worse than Russia in many other places.

Do you get the point? The same Wall Street and military industrial complex that rules the U.S. and has been engaged in mayhem worldwide was using Ukraine against Russia, and is now arming Ukraine in the same way it's arming Israel.

During the same time, the U.S. was working with Russia against Afghanistan, and arming Israeli rivals like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan.

Similar even happened in the East, where the U.S. was encircling China with military installations and arming Taiwan but not recognizing Taiwanese sovereignty in order to appease China, which is a major trading partner of the U.S.

 

[ralfy]

Indeed the world has not sacrificed all Eastern Europe the Kremlin and it pisses Russia(and Mearsheimer) off. Russia wants its neighbor's out of NATO so it can subjugate, oppress and ultimately conquer them. Just compare how it treats its NATO neighbors compared to its non NATO ones. Ukraine isn't in NATO so Russia felt itself free to poison their presidents, try to make them into a puppet nation, illegally annex their territory and ultimately invade. They felt they could do this because Ukraine didn't have protection, but since Poland or Latvia DO have that protection they were unable to do all those things to them. That's why Russia is so angry that most of eastern Europe is in NATO, that's why shortly before the war they demanded NATO forces retreat back to its cold war borders. Its because NATO prevents Russia from treating the rest of Eastern Europe as they treat Ukraine.


Indeed. Russia is not top dog any longer and post Imperial anxiety causes it to act out in increasingly unhinged ways to try and regain its ''top dog'' position.


And what he said was ''Russia isn't allowed to oppress its neighbors. The world isn't sacrificing all of eastern Russia to the Kremlin! Woe is them!''

But what Mearsheimer and other Kremlin stooges never quite manage to explain is WHY Russia is so inherently special that it deserves a unique Imperial status. Why is Russia so special that it deserves a sphere of influence spanning all of eastern Europe and why should the sovereignty of those countries and the well being of everyone living there be automatically subordinate to the Kremlin's whims?

Is it because ''America bad''? That certainly plays a part but even then it remains strange that these factors only apply to Russia. Not even China, the far larger adversary to the US is given this unique status. No one seriously argues that China should literally own Korea and Mongolia or that Europe isn't able to make any trade deal in Asia without the blessing of Xi Jinping. The unique status the ''America bad!'' folks give to Russia somehow isn't given to China or Iran.

Is it because Russia is just ''afraid'' of the big mean US? Why should that matter? Russia's neighbors are all rightfully afraid of Russia butchering them but according to these ''America bad'' people those countries should just bend over and allow Russia to rape them for fun and profit. Their fears aren't taken into account at all, or are laughed out of the room to appease Russia's feelings. Europe is afraid of Russia but we're not given the green light to annex Belarus and Kalingengrad. Europe's afraid of immigration but no one is saying Europe should enslave north Africa to go fix it.

The world isn't sacrificing Eastern Europe to Russia. Rather, according to Mearsheimer, the U.S. has been using Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia to maintain a unipolar global economy. That's why many of its military bases and installations are located there. They need to control the first and third regions to encircle Russia and China and the Middle East to control oil and other supplies. But there's one catch:


As Biden correctly pointed out, the U.S. uses other countries for proxy wars because it can't afford more Vietnams and Iraqs. That's also why the U.S. needed help from Russia over Afghanistan, and was ironically the basis for encouraging Russia to join NATO. In short, the U.S. provides the money and "allies" provide the warm bodies. And the money comes from the U.S. elite, which makes up 10 pct of the country's population and owns 70 pct of the country's wealth. Much of that wealth comes in the form of dollars, whose value can only be retained as long as a unipolar global economy remains, with the U.S. top dog.

That's also why for the U.S., countries like Israel and Ukraine are tools to be used for proxy wars in order to indirectly attack Russia and China. That's why the U.S. participated in color revolutions and why, as early as 2015, Nuland reported that they were directly supporting Ukrainian police, the government, and the military. Even Stoltenberg of NATO pointed out in the past that the goal is to use other countries against rivals like Russia.

Meanwhile, the U.S. continued to buy uranium from Russia and the EU fossil fuels from the same. When money talks, moralizing walks.

That's also why moralizing claims about annexation, oppression of peoples, tyranny, and even slanderous claims of being Kremlin stooges fall apart when one sees that the country insisting on such has been working with Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and the rest.

 

[Seanchaidh]

@Absent certainly does seem to be absent lately... hasn't made a single post since October 11th, the exact day a different user rejoined their favorite thread after months of hiatus.

He also seemed to appear quite suddenly to defend Russia at a time another user seemed to back away after getting dogpiled in this thread.

And his title is "And twice is the only way to live."

No accusations here, I'm sure it's all coincidence.

well now I at least know who you're imagining to be me. apparently they play GTA 4, according to a post in a forum I have looked at maybe three times in the past twenty years. GTA 4 is not the kind of game I tend to play.

anyway, to get back in the spirit of this thread, Kharneth does not care from whom the blood flows only that it flows! Blood for the Blood God!

 

[Silvanus]

The problem is that the country that's arming Ukraine and manipulated it earlier did worse than Russia in many other places.

1. Russia manipulated (and brutalised) Ukraine much, much earlier than the US. It also flooded Ukraine with arms before the US did.

2. "The US did bad things in Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq so therefore its not so bad for Russia to invade and annex Ukraine" isn't really an argument; its essentially whataboutism.

Do you get the point? The same Wall Street and military industrial complex that rules the U.S. and has been engaged in mayhem worldwide was using Ukraine against Russia, and is now arming Ukraine in the same way it's arming Israel.

Yet Russia is the aggressor, and Ukraine is now fighting to prevent annexation of its own internationally-recognised territory. Arming the target of invasion as it defends itself is not morally equivalent to arming an aggressor.

You can't just gloss over which side is the aggressor and which is the target of imperial invasion. That's pretty central to whether assistance can be justified.

 

[Seanchaidh]

2. "The US did bad things in other Vietnam/Afghanistan/Iraq so therefore its not so bad for Russia to invade and annex Ukraine" isn't really an argument; its essentially whataboutism.

"That's whataboutism" is support for victor's justice when used to focus attention away from the unrepentant crimes committed with impunity by the most powerful country on earth. Like it or not, the US set some precedents. The UK followed it along like a good lap dog. Neither the US (nor UK) nor the particular people responsible for those various precedents have gone to any effort to make reparations and thus change the nature of those precedents in a good way. That sort of hypocrisy does matter, and you should be a lot more mindful that the ruling class of the US and friends care nothing for human rights except insofar as they can use it to dominate more of the globe, and more suspicious of their enthusiasm for arming a country whose government they were involved in overthrowing and replacing not ten years earlier... against another government who they were involved in overthrowing and replacing (and then "managing" the elections in) some 30 odd years ago.

This is not an invitation to respond. Don't bother yourself or me.

 

[Silvanus]

"That's whataboutism" is support for victor's justice when used to focus attention away from the unrepentant crimes committed with impunity by the most powerful country on earth. Like it or not, the US set some precedents. The UK followed it along like a good lap dog. Neither the US (nor UK) nor the particular people responsible for those various precedents have gone to any effort to make reparations and thus change the nature of those precedents in a good way. That sort of hypocrisy does matter, and you should be a lot more mindful that the ruling class of the US and friends care nothing for human rights except insofar as they can use it to dominate more of the globe [...]

Yes, this is pure whataboutism. Listing the crimes of one country in order to deflect and justify the similar crimes of another country later and elsewhere is logically and morally bankrupt deflection.

They set the "precedent"? Oh, well, I suppose we can also excuse the actions of the US too, since the European colonial Empires-- one of which was Russia!-- engaged in brutal hegemony over other countries earlier.

and more suspicious of their enthusiasm for arming a country whose government they were involved in overthrowing and replacing not ten years earlier... against another government who they were involved in overthrowing and replacing (and then "managing" the elections in) some 30 odd years ago.

Manipulation that never even began to approach the scale or severity of Russian manipulation of Ukraine. The poisoning of Ukraine's President, the parading of his successor as a puppet, the proxy insurgency, the disguised troops, the literal annexation. Nothing America has ever done in Ukraine even comes close to it.

"Arming Ukraine" is also kind of ridiculous to gripe about when it is Russia that flooded the country with weapons for the preceding 8 years. Except Russia did so into the arms of a proxy insurgency it operates, whereas Western arms are being provided at the request of the government in direct defensive response to invasion.

This is not an invitation to respond.

I don't need your invitation or permission.

 

[Ag3ma]

I don't need your invitation or permission.

People should not put their views forward in public debate and expect others to not comment on them: if someone does not want their views commented on, they should keep those views to themselves. A request to be given a de facto last word and deny right to reply in an argument is pretty selfish.

 

[Satinavian]

U.S. politicians have known this since the 1980s, but since the early 2000s several countries in those regions became economically stronger and are now answering back. The result is a growing multipolar global economy, and the U.S. does not want that.

That certainly would have happened without Russia attacking the Ukraine. The EU was busy distancing itself from the US, pursueing its own economic and political interest.
But now ?

Russia using military conquest and fantasizing about cold war borders was just what the US needed to stay relevant in Europe. In addition to the fact that the whole debacle hurts the European economy (and the Russian) one far more than the US economy.

Russias conquest of the Ukraine is what delays the multipolar world order you dream of by decades.

 

[Hades]

The world isn't sacrificing Eastern Europe to Russia. Rather, according to Mearsheimer, the U.S. has been using Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia to maintain a unipolar global economy. That's why many of its military bases and installations are located there. They need to control the first and third regions to encircle Russia and China and the Middle East to control oil and other supplies. But there's one catch:

We're going around in circles. If the world left eastern Europe without any protection against the predator that historically and presently was out to get them then they would have betrayed them. For most of eastern Europe they indeed weren't sacrificed because they received the protection they needed. And that's why Russia and their shills are so angry about it. They wanted eastern Europe to get controlled by the Kremlin.

I think the big mistake in your reasoning is that you deem the US to be the only actor and that no other nation can possibly have desires or interests of their own. Eastern Europe didn't need an American siren's call to protect itself from the entity that keeps terrorizing them.

 

[Avnger]

We're going around in circles. If the world left eastern Europe without any protection against the predator that historically and presently was out to get them then they would have betrayed them. For most of eastern Europe they indeed weren't sacrificed because they received the protection they needed. And that's why Russia and their shills are so angry about it. They wanted eastern Europe to get controlled by the Kremlin.

I think the big mistake in your reasoning is that you deem the US to be the only actor and that no other nation can possibly have desires or interests of their own. Eastern Europe didn't need an American siren's call to protect itself from the entity that keeps terrorizing them.

It's typical Western (particularly, North American) tankie shit. They've gone so far down the anti-American exceptionalism track that they've looped right back around to American exceptionalism.

 

[Seanchaidh]

People should not put their views forward in public debate and expect others to not comment on them: if someone does not want their views commented on, they should keep those views to themselves. A request to be given a de facto last word and deny right to reply in an argument is pretty selfish.

I've seen enough of the kind of responses this thread generates. They are not worth the effort of the people posting them. Silvanus demonstrated this almost immediately. I mean this is just the most shameless sophistry.

They set the "precedent"? Oh, well, I suppose we can also excuse the actions of the US too, since the European colonial Empires-- one of which was Russia!-- engaged in brutal hegemony over other countries earlier.

The United States is the most powerful country on earth. It has the power to set and enforce new precedents. With that power, you would think, should come some responsibility over what those precedents are. Instead, the United States is baldly hypocritical, consistent only in placing expedience above every other value. Order, rules, 'stability', 'security', human rights, are all treated as tools by the United States ruling class to utilize to maintain its power. And you are participating in that maintenance with enthusiastic conviction. You're not inconsistent; after all, you dislike the hypocrisy half the time. But the other half of the time you are willing to overlook the role the support of people like you plays in maintaining US global hegemony so long as you can celebrate the punishment of the lesser international sinners-- whose greatest crime is mirroring-- by the greater one, who establishes the precedents, enforces the double standards, and pushes other countries to respond to its aggression and crimes in various ways, sometimes the most expedient of which are perpetrating crimes of their own. And expediency is the main value of this international order, make no mistake. The United States (and friends) has the power to change that if they wished. They manifestly do not. You either have not realized this yet (somehow!) or you find it acceptable.

 

[Asita]

@Absent certainly does seem to be absent lately... hasn't made a single post since October 11th, the exact day a different user rejoined their favorite thread after months of hiatus.

He also seemed to appear quite suddenly to defend Russia at a time another user seemed to back away after getting dogpiled in this thread.

And his title is "And twice is the only way to live."

No accusations here, I'm sure it's all coincidence.

...Dude.

Absent was also quite vocally critical of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, of the user you are now implying they are using an alt account to defend, and even of the same user you are insinuating they are using as an alt.