The “NATO is at fault” argument is absurd: what does Russia want?
A lot of people on the right, both on this blog and elsewhere, are arguing that Putin did what he did in Ukraine because of NATO’s “expansion” towards his borders. I’ve been arguing otherwise for quite some time, mounting similar points to those expressed in this article by Claire Berlinski. I think she says it especially well, however, so I’m going to quote her.
Her article takes the form of her answer to a reader on the topic of Ukraine, Russia, and NATO (I’ve put the reader’s initial statement to which she’s responding in bold, and I also have bolded certain parts of Berlinski’s response that I want to emphasize):
Independent of Putin, any regional power that has sufficient military capability will try to prevent distant powers from stationing military forces on their border.
Claire: Will they? Why hasn’t France, say, tried to prevent us from stationing forces on its border? Or Poland? The United States has troops stationed in nearly 150 countries. I haven’t counted how many borders this represents, but clearly, it is not true that any regional power with sufficient military capability will try to prevent distant powers from stationing military forces on their border.
Russia objects to the presence of our military forces on its border because it views us as an enemy. It does not view us as an enemy because our military forces are on its border. This gets the causality wrong. Our forces are on its border because it views us as an enemy—and what’s more, it means to invade our allies.
Russia views us as an enemy because we’re an obstacle to Russian imperialism, first; and second, because it sees us as what we very frankly are: a revolutionary country whose ideas are an inherent threat to Russia’s system of governance.
The idea that this conflict is owed to NATO’s determination to encroach upon Russia’s borders is Russia’s talking point. It’s incoherent. NATO is a defensive alliance. The Kremlin knows perfectly well that NATO will not, like Napoleon or Hitler, march on to Moscow in an unprovoked and conventional war. Russia’s security is not threatened by NATO. The security of Russia’s neighbors, however—who are our longstanding, democratic allies—is gravely jeopardized by Russia.
We’re not a “distant power” stationing forces on “Russia’s border,” in any event. We’re members of the NATO alliance; the alliance comprises 30 countries of which only two are not in Europe. If Russia objects to having armed forces on its Western border, it should stop invading its neighbors. That would without a doubt result, quite quickly, in a demilitarized Europe. The evidence for this is that even when Russia was busily picking off its neighbors, one by one, much of Europe had trouble imagining why they needed to spend more on their militaries…
This seems a relevant moment to remind readers that dissolving NATO was precisely what Russia demanded in its ultimatum before it invaded Ukraine. It did not demand that Ukraine abstain from joining NATO, as many seem to think.
There’s more about NATO there, and the article also goes on to publish in full another piece that appeared briefly in the Kremlin-aligned media on February 26. It’s publication back then was apparently an error. It appears to have been one of those pieces that are written in advance, in this case with the expectation that Russia would win the Ukraine War in a couple of days. Please go to Berlinski’s article and read the whole thing.
And apparently it’s bona fide, not some sort of fake news. I can’t swear that, but the circumstances under which it appeared certainly strongly indicate it.
That artile was taken down fairly quickly, but not before people had seen it and archived it. If it’s serious – and I believe it is – it makes it clear that those who say this conflict doesn’t concern us are sadly and utterly mistaken. I wish they were correct, but I strongly suspect that they are not. The article dovetails with things Putin has been saying and doing for years, which is another reason I believe it’s for real and that it expresses his actual goals: not just to regain the old Russian empire, but – as Khrushchev once famously said – of buryng us.
Here’s an excerpt [my emphasis]:
Russia is restoring its unity — the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe in our history, its unnatural dislocation, has been overcome. Yes, at a great cost, yes, through the tragic events of a virtual civil war, because now brothers, separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies, are still shooting at each other, but there will be no more Ukraine as anti-Russia.
Remember Nineteen Eighty-Four? To paraphrase, “If you want a picture of the future [of Ukraine and all other countries Russia conquers], imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.”
Remember, too, that although Orwell’s book was set in England, it was modeled after what Orwell knew of the Soviets. Putin isn’t a Marxist, but he has the same devotion they had to subjugating those who might want autonomy. Don’t forget also that before he was a politician, Putin was a KGB guy.
More [emphasis mine]:
Russia is restoring its historical fullness, gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together —in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, if we had allowed the temporary division to take hold for centuries, then we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants for allowing the disintegration of the Russian land.
Vladimir Putin has assumed, without a drop of exaggeration, a historic responsibility by deciding not to leave the solution of the Ukrainian question to future generations. After all, the need to solve it would always remain the main problem for Russia — for two key reasons. And the issue of national security, that is, the creation of anti-Russia from Ukraine and an outpost for the West to put pressure on us, is only the second most important among them.
The first would always be the complex of a divided people, the complex of national humiliation…
…Now this problem is gone—Ukraine has returned to Russia.
So, after Big Brother Russia has taught Little Brother Ukraine how to love Big Brother, like Winston Smith at the end of Nineteen Eighty-Four, the focus will be on a larger project:
And here begins the second dimension of the coming new era—it concerns Russia’s relations with the West. Not even Russia, but the Russian world, that is, three states, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, acting in geopolitical terms as a single whole. These relations have entered a new stage—the West sees the return of Russia to its historical borders in Europe. And he is loudly indignant at this, although in the depths of his soul he must admit to himself that it could not be otherwise.
Did someone in the old European capitals, in Paris and Berlin, seriously believe that Moscow would give up Kyiv? That the Russians will forever be a divided people? And at the same time when Europe is uniting, when the German and French elites are trying to seize control of European integration from the Anglo-Saxons and assemble a united Europe? Forgetting that the unification of Europe became possible only thanks to the unification of Germany, which took place according to the good Russian (albeit not very smart) will. To swipe after that also on Russian lands is not even the height of ingratitude, but of geopolitical stupidity. The West as a whole, and even more so Europe in particular, did not have the strength to keep Ukraine in its sphere of influence, and even more so to take Ukraine for itself. In order not to understand this, one had to be just geopolitical fools.
Note the resurgence of a language of European racism – the Anglo-Saxons versus the Slavs, I suppose. Note also the contempt expressed for the west as well as the hatred.
More [emphasis mine]:
And already fifteen years ago, after Putin’s Munich speech, even the deaf could hear — Russia is returning.
Now the West is trying to punish Russia for the fact that it returned, for not justifying its plans to profit at its expense, for not allowing the expansion of the western space to the east. Seeking to punish us, the West thinks that relations with it are of vital importance to us. But this has not been the case for a long time — the world has changed, and this is well understood not only by Europeans, but also by the Anglo-Saxons who rule the West. No amount of Western pressure on Russia will lead to anything. There will be losses from the sublimation of confrontation on both sides, but Russia is ready for them morally and geopolitically.
This next prediction has turned out to be somewhat incorrect so far:
Because the rest of the world sees and understands perfectly well — this is a conflict between Russia and the West, this is a response to the geopolitical expansion of the Atlanticists, this is Russia’s return of its historical space and its place in the world.
Russia does have some allies, but they are other non-Western powers such as China, and even China has pulled back a bit. More people are horrified by what Putin has done than the Russians bargained for.
However, nuclear weapons remain Putin’s not-at-all-secret weapon. I don’t think we’ve ever had a situation in which a nuclear power has been quite so threatening, except perhaps the Soviets during the Cold War era. Putin’s nuclear-weapons rattling brings me back to my youth, a time in which nuclear war with the USSR seemed very possible and childhood imaginings that it would destroy the world were easy to entertain.
I hope the Russian article I just quoted is mere hyperbole. I don’t think it is, though. As I’ve said before, I think it represents Putin’s long-held mindset. As the world takes its actual COVID masks off, Putin has taken his metaphoric mask off and shown us his face even more clearly and completely than ever before. You can feel the bitter taste of his swallowing post-Soviet Russian humiliation for all those long years, and now he spits it out again at Westerners’ conventions, niceties, naivete, and desires.
Sadly, I don’t think our leaders are up to the task of threading this needle – of stopping Putin without triggering a destructive rage in him that could cause him to launch such weapons, depending on his state of mind. I have no idea what the Russian protocol is regarding that or even what those under him believe – do they share his mindset? – and whether anyone could stop him or whether anyone would stop him. Putin’s power in the world comes from that threat, and his money comes from selling fossil fuels to a west that was too stupid to see what was coming, and too busy virtue-signaling to protect itself.
@neo:Putin’s power in the world comes from that threat, and his money comes from selling fossil fuels to a west that was too stupid to see what was coming, and too busy virtue-signaling to protect itself.
On these points I agree 100%.
are arguing that Putin did what he did in Ukraine because of NATO’s “expansion”
Not everyone characterized as saying this actually is saying this, and it’s worth keeping in mind.
Claire Berlinski went so far off the rails in 2016 that I lost almost total respect for anything she had to say and I used to like her when she contributed to Ricochet. Had almost forgot about her in the last six years.
Not saying she isn’t correct on this but when you go bats**t crazy on an issue I have a hard time taking you seriously ever again.
Obama, Biden, Clinton, McCain, Biden’s Slavic Spring in the “Spring” series from Tripoli to Damascus to Kiev and beyond. That said, the post-coup regimes in Kiev had 32 trimesters for cessation of hostilities, reconciliation, and remediation with the native people… persons affected. As for the NATO argument, a clear and progressive Cuban crisis that requires both parties to retreat.
n.n.:
“Requires both parties to retreat.” What fantasy world do you live in that you think Russia will retreat? Or do you mean that the West should retreat and let Russia have Ukraine and whatever else it deems necessary for its security? Peace in our time?
Griffin:
I agree with you about Berlinski and hesitated at first to read her piece for that reason. But I evaluate people on their arguments and not their past. Her arguments here are the same conclusions I have come to independently. A person can be very wrong on some things but right on others, and each topic must be evaluated independently.
Frederick:
But many people ARE saying that, and I’m talking about those people.
neo,
Yep, I think the fact that she lived abroad in Turkey and then France for so long meant she had totally lost a sense of what life was like for an average American Trump voter but in this case that international life experience might give her a good perspective.
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is prima facie evidence of why so many former Soviet affiliated states from the USSR and Warsaw Pact migrated into NATO. They saw the handwriting on the wall.
Had Vlad wanted to reunite the Russian empire, he should have taken the high road. Build Russia’s economy, facilitate trade with neighboring nations, make mutual agreements that are beneficial to both sides. Other nations would have warmed to that. Instead, Vlad has let his grief over the dissolution of the USSR and his belief in using force to bend people tohis will, led him along a path of belligerence – not only against the West (Anglo Saxons) but also anyone (Slavs, especially) who recognizes the value of western economic and democratic institutions.
That he was a successful KGB agent probably means he is a sociopath. Add that to his deep belief in restoring the grandeur of Russian empire, and you have a prescription for a dangerous man who will use military force to get his way.
Sensible people should begin to take Putin at his word, especially when the words have been repeated so many times over the years. This is Russian ethnic fascism, armed with nukes. Ukraine is “one” with Russia only if Ukraine submits. We’ll see if Ukrainian resistance persists.
Speaking as an Anglo-Saxon American, I don’t like racism in any form, anti-black, anti-white, or anti-Anglo.
This is so far down the rabbit hole, people can’t even see the sunlight. Let’s just try this:
“NATO is a defensive alliance.”
I suggest a lot of people in Serbia, Afghanistan, and Lybia would STRONGLY object to that characterization. You might justify NATO military action in those countries for a host of reasons but classifying it as “defensive” is…well, indefensible.
And, just to be clear, let’s boil Miss Berlinski’s argument down to its basic elements:
1. Putin sees expansion of NATO as a threat.
2. We’re going to expand NATO and tell Putin to go screw himself.
3. It’s completely silly to expect or anticipate telling Putin to screw himself will have any negative results.
I hate to use this analogy but if you poke a sleeping bear with a stick and the bear wakes up and eats you, who is at fault? And in this case, the person doing the poking is actually hiding behind someone else and that person is the one who gets eaten.
Would Putin have invaded Ukraine if there had been unequivocal commitments that membership was off the table from both NATO and Ukraine? Possibly. Maybe even probably. But we’ll never know, will we?
Why do only 15 countries currently recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state? Why do those 15 NOT include the U.S. or any member of NATO? Why is showing that kind of deference to totalitarian and genocidal CHINA perfectly fine but doing anything of the sort for Russia is inconceivable?
Mike
When Kennan discusses Russia, he makes the point that they have historical reasons based on their position in the center of Eurasia. They have been invaded many times, Mongols, Teutonic Knights, Sweden, France (Napoleon), Germany, and also conflicts with Turkey and Japan. Sure, they are paranoid, but there is a reason for that. They get invaded all the time. Heck, European nations were also paranoid before first and second world wars. The reason that they are no longer paranoid is that they are effectively vassals of the American Empire. If, when, America goes away it will be interesting to see what happens.
The US, and to a lesser extant, Britain, are also unique in lacking dangerous enemies on their borders. And even Britain went to war in 1914 because having Germany in Belgium was too close for comfort. If Germany hadn’t threatened Britain in that way, WWI would have been a very different conflict.
I think the question is not why Russia went to war, the question is if they have become too weak and too tied to the West to continue in isolation.
Yes to Kate- Putin is giving Europe a taste of Slavic fascism, inspired by Xi and his commie crony-capitalist fascist state.
Berlinski’s article is excellent, and there are others at her Cosmopolitan Globalist substack.
Noahpinion had a fine note too, for Dems to support Ukrainians, and against Trump a bit.
My wife’s goddaughter, child, and father made it out and into Slovakia with over 50k (1%+) refugees, not men between 16-60.
But many did claim NATO expansion meant Russia reaction.
It certainly looks like Putin can double-, triple- and quadruple-down almost as handily as any Democrat:
“…Russian dictator declares Ukrainians are ‘extreme gangsters’ and accuses them of using civilians as ‘human shields’ as his forces relentlessly bombard families’ homes.”—
https://instapundit.com/507205/
(Instapundit link to the DailyMail site)
Key graf:
“…Just hours before [his] TV address, Putin had phoned Emmanuel Macron to tell the French President that he has no intention of pulling back from Ukraine or watering down his security demands, will achieve his aims ‘whatever happens’ and will continue fighting until ‘the end’….”
Not terribly encouraging… Also not surprising.
OTOH:
“Russian oil firm Lukoil calls for end to war in Ukraine”—
https://tinyurl.com/2nb2be3k
H/T Instapundit.
And here’s a look into Miss Berlinski’s view of America and the world:
https://www.patreon.com/posts/alternative-to-30804439
In short, she pretty much thinks the problem is NOT that America wasted 20 years of blood and treasure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq but that Americans are unwilling to continue to waste blood and treasure in those and other places around the world FOREVER.
Mike
I think the argument about NATO expansion concerns what was done in the 90s more than today. Clinton aggressively expanded NATO east and had that not been done, along with the disastrous advice people like Jeffery Sachs gave Yeltsin, maybe Putin would still be in St Petersburg mumbling to himself.
I don’t believe NATO expansion caused Putin to invade Ukraine but it is something he can use as an excuse to explain his actions. For all the talk about why Putin is doing what he is doing, I haven’t heard many ideas of what can be done to stop him. If he decides to invade the Baltic states next, what will be the response? Does anybody think we are going to war with Russia over Latvia? What protection exactly does being a member of NATO guarantee? What would Putin have to do before the West decided to call his bluff and actually oppose him militarily? I don’t know.
In short, she pretty much thinks the problem is NOT that America wasted 20 years of blood and treasure in places like Afghanistan and Iraq but that Americans are unwilling to continue to waste blood and treasure in those and other places around the world FOREVER
We withdrew our troops from Iraq 10 years ago.
along with the disastrous advice people like Jeffery Sachs gave Yeltsin, maybe Putin would still be in St Petersburg mumbling to himself.
A severe economic depression hit all post-communist states during the period running from 1988 to 1995. Not sure where Sachs was active and what troublesome advice he may have given. About five Eastern European countries had smaller contractions and broke even during the period from 1995-98. Not sure what the special factor was in those cases. How Russia differed from other countries was the huge upsurge in street crime, to the point where Russia by 1999 had Brazilian homicide rates.
Gregory Harper, I think the Baltic states are already NATO members, so if Russian invaded them, we’d have to intervene or give up the alliance entirely.
On the one hand, big country invades smaller country, pretty cut and dried.
Still, after Trayvon, J6, Hands-Up-Dont-Shoot, Covid, George Floyd, 2020 election, aggressive censorship by social media, Afghan withdrawal and so many, many other issues I get nervous when the Dem Party, MSM and BigTech all decide to stampede in one direction.
So, while acknowledging the big-invades-little cut and dry element, I am noticing some elements of grey. Ukraine is one of the largest nations in Europe. It has great soil and plentiful valuable minerals yet it is one of the lowest (perhaps *the* lowest?) per capita economy. Many citizens have migrated out. Plenty of the remaining citizens are anti-gov and some are actively pro-Russian. I’ve read that a former pro-Russ but elected leader was forced out in the Maidan Revolution, and that the Maidan was not completely a local, organic movement.
We are, of course, not hearing all voices.
For all I know, this lady could be a covert Russian agent. But consider putting her voice into your collection of Ukraine information. Three short-ish videos in French with subtitles
@futurebrain1
Woman tells truth about Ukraine live on French media. Hosts are stunned.
3 parts video:
https://twitter.com/futurebrain1/status/1498738347518353410
Gregory Harper:
I think NATO was meant to be a deterrent. Most Russian leaders till now have not been willing to start a nuclear war. Putin is talking as though he is willing, although I’m not 100% sure that he would. But he is playing on valid fears that he would. Therefore NATO’s hands are tied, and of course Ukraine is not a member of NATO. If Putin invaded a NATO state I believe that NATO would defend it with troops.
Kate:
I know that the Baltic states are NATO members but I just can’t see us going to war with Russia over Latvia or Estonia or any number of other NATO members. I think the rumors of Putin’s instability actually work in his favor as a deterrent. Would he actually start a nuclear war over Latvia? Do we want to find out?
I have a terrible image of Biden having another aneurysm and being replaced by Kamala. Putin invades Latvia and the world waits for a decision from President Harris on what our response is. What a way for the world to end.
MBunge:
As I wrote in a previous comment, I disagree with Berlinski on many things.
Probably even more things than I agree with her on.
But that does not invalidate her argument here.
It is quite common for me to disagree with someone on many things and yet agree with them on the things on which they mount good arguments. I had independently arrived at my point of view long before I read her piece (or anything recent by her on the subject of Ukraine), and yet I had come to the same basic conclusions.
Arguments either work or they don’t work. I don’t reject an argument from a person if if makes sense to me, even if I reject many other arguments from that same person if they don’t make sense to me.
I’ve read that a former pro-Russ but elected leader was forced out in the Maidan Revolution, and that the Maidan was not completely a local, organic movement.
The ability of outside agencies to mobilise people in other countries to protest is vastly over-rated. You cannot grow a movement which gets people onto the streets. They have to want to do it.
Sure, you can fund it. You can provide moral support. But for boots on the ground, you need actual popular support.
(The environmental movement is an example. There is endless money from billionaires pouring in. Yet few people actually will protest. Because most people just don’t care, and no amount of activism will make them care.)
What you can do, and the Russians have done, is persuade people that it is possible to buy a regime change. So they aggressively push the line that the Maidan was generated by the West.
Likewise all the brave anti-war protesters in Russia will be tarred with “working for the CIA”. It prevents Putin having to deal with the fact that much of his population actively disagree with him.
Chuck:
Many European countries have been invaded a lot. I doubt Russia is number one in that regard. I’m not expert enough on European history to say who is number one, but I bet that Poland is way up there. The boundaries of countries in Europe have changed many times.
No one has invaded Russia since WWII. And yet Russia has done quite a bit of invading of others since then – including putting down popular revolutions in its satellite countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Gregory Harper:
Well Vlad has called and it’s time to abrogate treaties and disband NATO. Do you feel safer now?
By the short hairs. Cue The Volga Boatmen.
The issue with NATO and its expansion is that what was done was done specifically to contain and diminish Russia. Whether one agrees with that approach, or not, one can’t be surprised that Russia isn’t going to sit idly by and take it. Both sides get a vote and Putin has voted.
If China forms alliances with Mexico and Canada and all three countries start forming trading routes, pipelines, offshore oil platforms… taking North American gas and mineral resources out of this hemisphere and into Asia is the U.S. supposed to sit back and take it? What if our economy is crippled by these actions?
I don’t agree at all with Putin’s approach or what he is doing in Ukraine, but the most essential component of international policy in that region is understanding that Russia is there and Russia is currently led by Vladimir Putin.
MBunge’s bear poking analogy is completely apt. The West and Ukraine have been poking a bear. The bear will react. Violently. That’s what bears do.
I don’t know if any other diplomatic approach over the past 20 years could have stopped Putin from his expansionist campaign, but I do know the approach we have taken has not.
I know I’m a broken record on this video: https://youtu.be/If61baWF4GE but at least watch from the 9 – 16 minute marks (I’d highly recommend covering the North Crimea Canal up to minute 18).
Russia is being economically strangled. Russia’s situation does not mean the only option is expansion into Ukraine. A noble, peaceful nation would work on trade and cooperation. But Russia is Russia.
Based on what the West and Ukraine have done in the past decade and based on who Putin is; Putin’s response was all but guaranteed.
Chester Draws,
I think foreign powers can and have had tremendous influence on protest movements, even regime change. It’s no coincidence how many issues fomented on U.S. college campuses align against the U.S.’ interests. There is documentation of Russia and China actively coordinating and funding counter movements on U.S. college campuses.
And how many regimes has our CIA helped topple?
Based on who Vlad is, as evidenced by what Vlad has done in prior to 2022, Vlad’s actions are unsurprising. Pretext and taking advantage of weakness, it’s a predator thing.
Gregory Harper,
Do you accept that the possibility of nuclear cruise missiles launched from just 13 minutes flight time away from both your largest city and national capitol is a legitimate national security concern?
As to stopping Putin, what if the West had agreed to the demilitarization of the Ukraine and a permanent banning of its joining NATO? But now? Too late.
As for Latvia? I think Kate has the right of it.
“I think NATO was meant to be a deterrent.” neo
As long as the Soviet Union existed, that was certainly the case. In the eyes of the Russians, Clinton’s push to expand NATO changed that dynamic.
Art Deco provides some relevant background; “A severe economic depression hit all post-communist states during the period running from 1988 to 1995. … Russia differed from other countries was the huge upsurge in street crime, to the point where Russia by 1999 had Brazilian homicide rates.”
So along with a severe economic depression, Russia had astronomical street crime. So Russia didn’t pose a significant threat of renewing its former aggression under the Soviets.
Well I wouldn’t, but some do, call the Trump administration a regieme.
I am noticing some elements of grey. Ukraine is one of the largest nations in Europe. It has great soil and plentiful valuable minerals yet it is one of the lowest (perhaps *the* lowest?) per capita economy. Many citizens have migrated out. Plenty of the remaining citizens are anti-gov and some are actively pro-Russian. I’ve read that a former pro-Russ but elected leader was forced out in the Maidan Revolution, and that the Maidan was not completely a local, organic movement.
Once more with feeling. Neither the security services nor his political party were willing to go to bat for Victor Yanukovich. That’s why left the country. In any case, that was 8 years ago and there have been five competitive elections in the Ukraine in the intervening years. The Russophile parties commanded > 40% of the electorate a dozen years ago. They now command about 16%, so you can see that Russia has been playing its cards real well. I should note that every 3 or 4 years on average there is a bust up in Latin America similar to what the palaeotwerps deride as a ‘color revolution’. Why given the water under the bridge is this event of such interest to people?
The Ukraine is a fairly poor country. You’re contention is what, that it’s a loser country so does not merit self-government? (Yes, that is a theme you see in Russian nationalist conversation). Value added in agriculture accounts for about 9% of nominal gdp. About 40% of it’s domestic product is exported. About 20% of their export revenue is derived from services, about 33% from foodstuffs; about 10% from fuel, minerals, and agricultural raw materials; and about 37% from manufactures. I think you’d call it an early 20th century economy, although unusually engaged in international markets given its population and size.
And how many regimes has our CIA helped topple?
Here’s a wager: take the number estimated by the Institute for Policy Studies and divide by 10.
The issue with NATO and its expansion is that what was done was done specifically to contain and diminish Russia.
Countries benefit from such alliances when there is someone nearby to be contained. There aren’t many countries which require containing in this way. I’m not sure I’d have said Russia was one even a month ago. Guess what?
So Russia didn’t pose a significant threat of renewing its former aggression under the Soviets.
Turns out the east European states were prescient. Sad, but here we are.
It takes 13 strokes to kill a dead pony.
But to Neo’s observation about Poland; 16.93% of Poland’s population was killed in WWII. That is the highest of all. Really sucked to be invaded by both Germany and the Soviets. Yet somehow for some reason Poland is in NATO, and wants nothing to do with Vlad. Russia used to rule Poland, you would think they would trust Vlad?
Art Deco: “The Ukraine is a fairly poor country. You’re contention is what, that it’s a loser country so does not merit self-government?”
My suspicion is that the country is not being run for the benefit of its people.
Else the people would be better off.
My wife worked for a company with a branch in Poland. I visited and met some Ukrainians working at the site. They were pretty clear that opportunity in Ukraine was awful, thus their move to Poland.
JimNorCal:
Ukraine has long been corrupt and Russia has long been corrupt. If Russia takes over, Ukraine will not be better off than before.
There have been several (three, I believe) changes of leadership in Ukraine in the last decade alone. They are all different from each other, but they have all had to contend with the corruption that is there (partly, by the way, as a result of Russian influence). It’s not easy to drain swamps – as we have discovered. And some of those regimes have not even tried.
I don’t think the US – or many other countries these days – is “being run for the benefit of its people.”
Many European countries have been invaded a lot.
I said as much when I pointed out that they were all paranoid prior to WWI. France was paranoid about Germany, Germany about France and their funding of Russian development to threaten Germany in the East, and Britain about having Germany in Belgium. In other words, paranoia is normal. Not taking it into account when dealing with other nations is not smart diplomacy.
Art Deco:
Yes, according to the left and many on the right, the CIA caused every coup in the world except the good ones.
My suspicion is that the country is not being run for the benefit of its people.
Else the people would be better off.
There likely is deadweight loss and diminished economic dynamism. There may also be human capital deficits. It’s perfectly ordinary that one country has a less productive workforce than another.
In other words, paranoia is normal.
No, paranoia is not normal. Contingency planning under uncertainty is normal.
16.93% of Poland’s population was killed in WWII.
I think that’s the share of their Slavic population killed. Add to that the Jews killed. Jews accounted for about 10% of Poland’s population in 1939.
Serbia during WWi was another country which suffered terribly.
Geoffrey Britain:
I cannot understand why you still think that Putin isn’t exactly who he says he is and what he has demonstrated he is – a believer that Mother Russia must take its previous possessions back.
You cling to this idea that he is less expansionist than the Soviet Union, which was mega-expansionist. Whether he is exactly and precisely as expansionist as they were remains to be seen, but he is not just being defensive.
He wants to own and/or control Ukraine and other countries of Eastern Europe because they are not allowed to be autonomous and are really part of Russia. He has said so. And (much like Hitler) I doubt he will stop there.
Please read this if you haven’t yet done so.
If China forms alliances with Mexico and Canada and all three countries start forming trading routes, pipelines, offshore oil platforms… taking North American gas and mineral resources out of this hemisphere and into Asia is the U.S. supposed to sit back and take it? What if our economy is crippled by these actions?
This hasn’t happened to Russia, so what’s your point?
MBunge’s bear poking analogy is completely apt.
It is completely invalid outside your imagination.
I cannot understand why you still think that Putin isn’t exactly who he says he is and what he has demonstrated he is – a believer that Mother Russia must take its previous possessions back.
He gets his story from Mearsheimer and he’s stickin’ to it.
Much of Poland’s leadership population was killed at the outset of World War II as well, killed by the Soviet Union (Katyn and other venues). Not killed in war, either. Murdered in cold blood.
Well, we can agree that Ukraine is not being run for the benefit of its people.
Now the next question:
Is this war being waged for the benefit of the Ukrainians?
It’s noticeable that so many Europeans along with globalist Americans, instead of wringing hands and calling for a cease fire as they’ve done countless times in the past, are instead escalating at every opportunity … pouring gasoline on the fire … and seem willing to fight to the last Ukrainian.
re the statements about Russia’s concerns about possible cruise missile on their borders….there are a lot of US cities that could be reached in about 12 minutes by a submarine-launched ballistic missile off our coast. Would cruise missiles on the Russian border really be that much worse?
Ask Vlad if the war on Ukraine of being waged for the Ukrainians?
Oh, Vlad already already answered that Jim. It is a war for Roosia (aka, Vladistan). That was a hard one.
Hi, Rufus. That was a very interesting video. I had no idea about the canal being there. Looking at the peninsula now, though, in Google Maps, I see that much of it is laced with canal branches.
Fog of war and all that, do take it with a grain of Cs-137 or Sr-90, but does it take 13 minutes for Vlad to crap up Ukraine or Roosia. The answer my friend may be blowing in the wind.
Vlad’s boys are shelling a nuclear power plant?
https://mobile.twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/1499548007443968009
I disagree with several of Claire Berlinski’s assertions.
France and Poland do not object to American protection from their fears of the Russian bear.
America being the 800lb Gorilla in the room pretty much does as it pleases. Economic pressure and foreign ‘aid’ are great persuaders to see it America’s way.
Russia objects to the presence of our military forces on its border not because it views us as an enemy but as a bully who insists that it get its way.
Berlinski asserts that, “Our forces are on its border because it views us as an enemy—and what’s more, it means to invade our allies.
Do actions still speak louder than words? Arguably, Putin has been remarkably restrained in his imperial ambitions.
After protests failed and no other recourse remained, Putin used military force to prevent Georgia’s inclusion into NATO. When western factions sought to block Russia’s access to Crimea and its strategically important Sevastopol naval base, Putin again used military force to secure permanent access to that base. Now as with Georgia, Putin is using military force to prevent the Ukraine’s
inclusion into NATO.
What evidence is there, other than fear based rationales and Putin’s expressed beliefs as to a greater Russia… that Putin seeks to invade our allies? Especially given that a Russian invasion of neighboring States to expand Russia’s borders would necessarily entail attacking NATO and by treaty committing Russia to war with the United States… raising the likelihood of nuclear war. Has Putin demonstrated a death wish? Oh that’s right he’s a crazy madman. But what would a nuclear war do to his dream of a restored Russia? Pretty chancy to assume that when push comes to shove, America would back down and that no accidental event would trigger a nuclear war.
Berlinski claims that, “Russia views us as an enemy because we’re an obstacle to Russian imperialism, first; and second, because it sees us as what we very frankly are: a revolutionary country whose ideas are an inherent threat to Russia’s system of governance.”
Imperialism is a system of governance that rules over disparate peoples. What chance that Putin seriously entertains the ambition to rule over western and central Europe? Most of whom are members of NATO…
Good thing that the American hegemony has no Imperial ambitions. And half of America and the majority of citizens in the West are actively trying to destroy the ideas to which she refers.
How much of a threat to Russian ‘imperialism’ are woke snowflakes?
I could go on but clearly this woman has no appreciation for strategic and military considerations. So… despite its past history in a variety of regions, Russia should accept that NATO is a defensive alliance. One that the Russians should trust and get over their unreasonable fears. Got it.
Poland and other former Warsaw Pact countries were quick to join NATO to avoid being gobbled up by Russia
Neo,
The Soviets were international socialists and founded on expansion. Putin wants to attain Russia’s former glory. I’m sure he realizes a conquest of, say Western Europe is off the table for the foreseeable future.
Don,
When Poland and other former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO they had no reasoned basis for assuming that Russia would seek to gobble them up as the Soviets had done. They simply and understandably weren’t willing to risk it. Not so different from Russia’s unwillingness to risk NATO placing offensive weapon systems just 13 minutes from Moscow.
Do you accept that the possibility of nuclear cruise missiles launched from just 13 minutes flight time away from both your largest city and national capitol is a legitimate national security concern?
Geoffrey Britain:
You keep bringing this up within the Cuban missile crisis context, but the tech has moved way beyond 1962.
With both sides equipped with subs and stealth bombers armed with nuclear missiles, I don’t believe the Cuba/Turkey analogy holds anymore.
I’ve been googling but can’t find the launch-to-target times for subs and bombers. (I’m not surprised that information isn’t easily available.)
I suspect if we want to hit Moscow or they want to hit DC, I doubt either side needs a nearby land base to do it in a short amount of time.
I’m clear Putin wouldn’t be happy with NATO bases in Ukraine, but it’s not because it’s still 1962 and we would have the advantage because we forced the Soviets to remove missiles in Cuba.
Geoffrey is now Vlad’s Psaki. Sad.
The “mom liked you best” argument is one destined to go round and round endless times without resolution. Similarly, the NATO / Warsaw Pact offensive / defensive argument ends up at the same place, as does any discussion of whom was responding to the other’s provocation.
Putin claims to view NATO as an offensive force. I tend to agree, as that is precisely how we viewed the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO didn’t, which may be the problem, as it gives the Russians an easy target to take pot shots at. While, I’m all in favor of easy targets, I’m not so much in favor of them when they am us.
Perhaps the problem is that NATO is a structure constructed to win the Cold War. In that, it was wildly successful. But that war has been over for 30 years and it is time to structure for the next war, whatever that war may be. It is not outside the realm of possibility that simply retaining an outdated structure hated by the Other Side makes the current festivities a bit more possible. And I never want to make it easy for those nations who don’t like us a lot.
If it were me, I’d strongly consider dissolving NATO right now. After which, reconstitute with the same membership and goals more in line with 2022 rather than the goals of 1949 when it was stood up. Structure for the NEXT war rather than the one we won a generation and a half ago. Who knows, we might just be in a better position to win the next one. Cheers –
Yes, according to the left and many on the right, the CIA caused every coup in the world except the good ones.
–neo
It’s strange to me to keep encountering arguments I knew chapter and verse from being on the left and now hearing them from the right.
Phillip Sells,
I also was not aware at how aggressively Ukraine was building infrastructure to try to interrupt Russian oil exports, or how much they charge Russia in tariffs to cross their land via pipeline, nor the new offshore oil and natural gas discoveries.
More on the rush by all the usual suspects that are typically arrayed against … us.
“The usual woke-ster suspects (Google and its YouTube affiliate, Apple, Nike, and Disney and other Hollywood studios), Boeing the big government contractor, and, predictably, Visa and Mastercard have all cancelled Russia to one degree or another—on their own, without being “asked” by Uncle Sam. Because they no longer need to be asked. It’s so predictable.
Several top U.S. and European energy companies have said they will pull out of Russia, leaving behind huge stakes in oil/gas projects over there, just up and writing it off with no compensation from Russia, handing it to Russia, like burning pallets of $100 bills, makes no sense at all. Just to please Brandon/Kombucha and whoever’s behind that autistic girl from Sweden.
A German retailer closed its stores in Russia, instantly firing 1200 people. Sure, the company is losing money. But it’s proving its regime loyalty.
New York’s Metropolitan Opera just fired its Russian star singer lady; she had refused to issue a statement condemning Putin. The same thing happened with a top conductor in Germany. The Pretty Hate Machine has shifted from cops and “racists” (2020) to the unvaccinated (2021) to Russians (2022.) Un-American? Hahah, I think it’s quite well baked into America by now.
Someone also cancelled Russia out of the 2022 Paralympic Winter Games, and cancelled Russian cats out of some international cat show. Yeah, they’re fighting cripples and cats now. You know, just to make it clear who the bad guys are.”
So, yeah. Big country invades smaller country. Pretty cut and dried.
But personally, I can’t shake the feeling that there’s more going on than you see on the surface.
Be wary, the manipulation engine is dialed up to 11.
“…what if the West had agreed to the demilitarization of the Ukraine…”.
What if the Ukrainians didn’t want to be demilitarized to keep Vlad happy?
Jen:
Fog of war, but will it be NATO’s fault in Vlad manages to rearrange the core of those nuke plants?
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/03/03/breaking-ukrainian-nuclear-power-plant-on-fire-and-under-attack-from-russians-n531322
13 minutes, and which way is the wind blowing? The Russian designed nuke plants are graphite moderated and do not have a containment structure. O wonder if there has Bern a run on iodine tablets yet?
The NATO porn has been dialed up to 13 by Vlad for a long time.
Yep. And I, for one, don’t want to be manipulated into a war on account of Ukraine. Geez, it isn’t like Zelensky and the Ukraine were trying to avoid war. Putin isn’t the only demagogue here.
Jen:
Regarding iodine tablets; they protect you from I-131 uptake (fallout) from nuclear weapons or from irradiated nuclear fuel rods that are broken open or burned. A fission product it is called.
In the old days at Hanford, people downwind of the fuel processing plants got dosed with I-131 from time to time. In the 1950s production of Pu was more important than public safety. Quite a few locals died later of thyroid cancer. By locals, I mean farmers in Eastern WA, Eastern OR, and Western ID.
I’m sure that Vlad is deeply concerned for the safety and integrity of that nuclear power complex (not).
What’s the saying? “Vlad, that’s why we can’t have nice things.”
Chuck:
I missed the part where Zelensky was talking about needing to annex part of Russia.
I missed the part where Zelensky was talking about how Russia isn’t a real country and it’s really a part of Ukraine and always has been.
I missed the part where Zelensky invaded Russia.
I suppose you think if only Zelensky had done what Russia said, everything would have been fine. And I suppose it’s true that if Zelensky surrendered to the control of Putin without a war there wouldn’t have been a war.
Also, no one here has been talking about sending US troops into Ukraine, so what’s your point?
JimNorCal:
What makes you think people haven’t been calling for a ceasefire?
In fact, there have been negotiations to try to effect one. I don’t think Putin is the least bit interested in a real ceasefire.
Don:
Putin isn’t planning (at the moment, and maybe never) to conquer Western Europe through invasion and military defeat. He couldn’t succeed, anyway, even if he wanted to.
He does plan to “bury” the West, though. He wants Russia to become the dominant world power and hem the West in, making it inconsequential on the world stage.
And if the West thwarts his plans to take over Eastern Europe, there’s always those nuclear weapons he can threaten the West with. It’s Eastern Europe he wishes to conquer either by their surrender (which he thought would already have happened in Ukraine) or by military conquest without Western intervention.
Quite a few locals died later of thyroid cancer. By locals, I mean farmers in Eastern WA, Eastern OR, and Western ID.
When? The thyroid is just about the least lethal site for a primary tumor. There is one odd subtype which is invariably lethal, but that accounts for 2% of all diagnoses. Among the other subtypes, the ratio of annual deaths to new diagnoses is around 0.02.
He wants Russia to become the dominant world power and hem the West in, making it inconsequential on the world stage.
As we speak, our population is more than double his and our output exceeds his by a factor of 5. If that’s actually his goal, he really has lost his reason.
huxley,
I think you may be laboring under a misimpression. I haven’t said anything about subs or bombers, which would only be used in the outbreak of a full scale
nuclear war.
I have repeatedly mentioned the most deadly strategic threat Russia could potentially face, if the Ukraine became a member of NATO. Russia would then face a potential strategic nightmare, air launched nuclear cruise missiles released at low altitude, flying nap of the earth, just 13 minutes away from Moscow. Such an attack might not be even detected until seconds before detonation. If timed well, such an attack could take out Russia’s entire political and military upper echelons. I’ve also repeatedly stated that it doesn’t matter whether NATO would ever launch a first strike. What matters is that the Russians cannot allow even the remotest possibility of that capability to eventuate.
The only relevance the Cuba analogy holds is that we were willing to go to war with the Soviets over the ability of the Soviets to hit us with so little time to react with missiles in Cuba. That was obviously a valid concern. If the Ukraine joins NATO, there’s no way that Russia would even know if NATO aircraft were loaded with nuclear cruise missiles and preparing to attack.
In fact, they might not know they were under attack until after detonation.
As far as the Russians are concerned, NATO on their border is expecting them to permit a nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
More on the rush by all the usual suspects that are typically arrayed against … us.
The energy industry and the law firms it employs are among all sectors the most inclined to build relationships with Republicans. They’re the least woke. They also have to take calculated risks, and calculating means avoiding some risk.
om,
We simply disagree. I am no more “Vlad’s Psaki” than you are Klaus Schwab’s unofficial spokesman.
Is this war being waged for the benefit of the Ukrainians?
You mean they’re being a bore by defending themselves. Glad to know you’ll be in our foxholes.
It’s strange to me to keep encountering arguments I knew chapter and verse from being on the left and now hearing them from the right.
That tells you much of the Sailerite / palaeotwerp right has a similar psychology to the red haze left. Just a different menu of people to loathe.
Art Deco:
They started dying in the 1960s through the 1980s IIRC. Search on “Hanford Downwinders.” Thyroid cancer has a latency of course, but most of the really significant releases were from processing the irradiated fuel rods, which involved dissolving the fuel rods in acid, before the I-131 contained in the fuel rods was allowed to decay. Decay of the I-131 takes time. There were also other short lived highly radioactive fission products that went up the stacks and into the “local” environment. The most notorious release was “The Green Run” search for it regarding Hanford.
The I-131 contaminated forage eaten by dairy cows and thus the milk; people got thyroid cancer from the milk.
What chance that Putin seriously entertains the ambition to rule over western and central Europe?
You shouldn’t be handicapping, because we’re all on quicksand right now.
Moving into Central Asia would mean acquiring high birthrate Muslims and possibly rattling China. The Soviet Union once subjugated the Caucasus and all of Europe east of Germany and Italy bar the states along the Adriatic. They also had Finland backed into a corner. Suggest that’s the goal. Have a gander at the list of states they demanded be expelled from NATO and at the Scandinavian states they threaten.
As far as the Russians are concerned, NATO on their border is expecting them to permit a nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.
They could be hit from Dublin by an ICBM, so how much of a buffer zone do they want under their control?
While we’re at it, 8 of the 10 states they demanded be expelled from NATO are not on their border. Oh, and when they’ve annexed the Ukraine, they’ll need more buffer states. Steve Sailer will make the case.
I don’t think the US – or many other countries these days – is “being run for the benefit of its people.” — Neo
The quote of the day. Or is it too obvious to qualify?
Geoffrey:
.
But your rationalizations and explaining of events from Vlad’s perspective, since you seem to imply you know his motivations, are not a mark of objectivity.
Regarding WEF/Dravos and Schwab that is additional Vlad spin. Because I’m notorious for promoting the Great Reset and the effete global elite (not). The Great Reset is a threat, like Vlad and Xi. You know the concept; walking and chewing gum at the same time.
Have you stopped beating your pet fur seal pups yet? Does it take 13 minutes?
Art Deco; Geoffrey Britain:
Indeed, when the Russians take over Ukraine or any other state – voila! They’ve got a new border to protect!
Can’t have any nukes near that new border either.
Samuel Huntington anticipated this back in the 1990’s, in his book The Clash of Civilizations. One of his chapters was about Ukraine, in which the western part of the country is part of Western civilization, while the eastern part was part of Orthodox civilization. The Yugoslavia breakup involved the same civilizational fault line, with the addition of Islamic civilization.
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
“Wednesday, March 02, 2022
NATO’s Potential Russian Flashpoint May be at Sea
Are you aware that NATO nations have already been attacked by Russia?
Well, their merchant ships in the Black Sea have.
If you know your European history, you know the seriousness of this … yet, it is out of most people’s scan.
Links and thoughts over at USNIBlog.”
I want the Russian Imperialist State to be crushed and rendered harmless. I want Putin to be put down with a round in his head in the Soviet style. The expansion of Imperial States are limited by by their modes of transportation and the opposition of other states. Since present transportation technology allows forces to be transported anywhere on the planet, the only effective limit to imperial expansion is superior firepower and the will to use it. The Ukraine simply is an example of why Russian imperialism must be stopped. If we don’t fight over The Ukraine then we will be fighting the Russians or other would be conquerors in our own streets. By defending The Ukraine we’re ultimately defending ourselves. If someone has a problem with this then they’re just another fucking traitor.
Neo – I am with Geoffrey by and large. Almost all foreign policy grandee’s stated at the time of NATO expansion first to Poland then others that this was a grave geopolitical blunder to use Talleyrand’s terminology. George Kennan the famous X of Soviet containment was particularly harsh. Mearsheimer lecture of Yale is a superb exposition. It is worth the time
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&ab_channel=TheUniversityofChicago
Ditto with Vladimir Pozner (a Frenchman) lecture
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X7Ng75e5gQ&ab_channel=YaleUniversity
Note both of these lectures are in the 2010’s.
If you want to be disabused of the notion that people yearn for of Western Cultural culture listen to this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwIVY2oimI&ab_channel=YaleUniversity
I have dozens and dozens of examples of thoughtful people commentary with the same message.
Putin is NOT a communist. He is an ardent Russian Nationalist. As posited in an earlier post he is trying to get as many ethnic Russians in a greater Russia due to their demographic collapse. He doesn’t want to reconstitute the Soviet Empire but that of a greater Russia. Agree with it or not he states what he wants to do and does it. He like all other autocrats and tyrants states what he will do and does what he says. This was no secret of what he said as he has said the same thing for years. Our incompetent inept corrupt foreign policy and political establishment ignored this through their cultural chauvinism as their currency with words is that of lies and no meaning. Bismarck stated that it takes a generation to understand what impact a foreign policy action has. My fear is that we will have a nuclear armed world as nations realize that the US word ain’t worth the paper it is written on. In 1993 we GUARENTEED that NATO would not move eastward. In 1994, we GUARENTEED to Ukraine that the US will defend its sovereignty if it gave up the nuclear weapons. The political and foreign policy elites wrote checks that the American people wouldn’t cash.
I have some personal experience with this. I put up car factories in Poland in the late 90’s. My in-laws were Polish refugees from Galicia what is now Western Ukraine as Stalin drew the lines in 1946 and heard stories of their deportation to Siberia and later emigration. I dealt with the corruption of the time. In the course of my assignment, I was tasked with looking at joint ventures in Ukraine, Russia and Kazakhstan. When looking at the costs of moving goods to and from the joint ventures I saw the cost of armed guards having to ride on the rail cars to prevent theft and looting…maybe. About $1800 in 1997 dollars and it had to be in USD paid in cash. If another criminal gang offered more money it was not a guarantee the shipment would get through unless we knew where the guard’s family lived. Then there was the border customs. You had to use certain entry ports as that business had “arrangements” with the guards there. I navigated between the rival gangs or kpbiwa (meaning “roof” that covers business’s associated with that gang). The Ukrainians were the worse. When an oligarch found out I was the decision maker on a big joint venture I got an oblique offer of having three young women at my service even in Warsaw. The others in the group only got strip clubs, expensive watches and electronics offers. They were Europeans hence they could take them if they chose. I fired most of them when we got back. I know a bit about this part of the world and how it works. Not much has changed.
We poked the bear and he bit. Would he have bit if the west didn’t poke. Only if the bear perceives a threat to ethnic Russians ala Georgia then Eastern Ukraine after the CIA instigated Maiden revolution. Note that when the Baltics became part of NATO, Russia was too weak to react due to low oil prices and these countries did not discriminate against the ethnic Russians as they knew what would happen if they did.
This whole damn mess could have been avoided but our elites stepped on our dicks. Ukraine could have remained unaligned and unbothered. Ataturk was a tyrant and lead a genocide against Armenians. In Singapore, Lee was an autocrat who executed drug dealers. Nasser was a charismatic general who expelled the Jews. Franco was an autocrat who froze Spain in statis until after his death. Pinochet executed communists. None of them nice guys. All worked on the behalf of their perceived national (ethnic) interest. This is where I place Putin. In the pantheon of Russian leaders he is not an Ivan the Terrible or Stalin. He is not a Peter the Great but more in line with Alexander I.
I am not an apologist for Putin but a realist. Remember right before this incursion there was color revolutions in Belarus and Kazakstan. The last 6 years has revealed that the western deep state is real and working against normal people’s interest.
It is the Ukrainian people that I feel sorrow for. I know both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. There is a distinct difference despite what Putin believes. Like Spanish vs. Mexicans. But as I tell people here in the US. They voted for it. Don’t think it couldn’t happen here with CRT doctrines. That is a real danger.
The fog of war is approaching volcanic eruption proportions.
I’m working on a theory that could be the basis for a politico-suspense thriller, which means it has about as much probability of being true as most of the rationales hitherto advanced for Putin’s Putsch.
That’s the kind of world we live in these days.
PS to Spartacus > thanks for the personal report.
Side comment @ Spartacus > “When looking at the costs of moving goods to and from the joint ventures I saw the cost of armed guards having to ride on the rail cars to prevent theft and looting”
Sounds like Los Angeles may be going down that road.
https://notthebee.com/article/wow-reporter-keeps-hearing-about-train-robberies-in-la-and-goes-to-check-it-out-finds-thousands-of-boxes-scattered-around-the-tracks
Here is a good exposition of a viewpoint that is being shouted down https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4dq9tPNF-w
IMO we are complicit in causing thousands of Ukrainians to die for nothing.
When Biden told Ukraine in December they could join NATO he set this in motion. Biden is a complete idiot. Apparently he is on the verge of letting Iran get the bomb.
I loved Claire Berlinski but she has totally lost it. Her shoot move communicate piece this morning is crazy. Those tactics won’t stop a Russian assault, they won’t even slow it down much as Russians expend some autocannon ammo, but they will result in a lot of dead Ukrainians and destroyed buildings.
This guy is worth watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5BAZ2bBUzM&t=1s
I think Putin may be on some medication that is influencing him, but if he dropped dead today things would continue as they are, his position is the position of most of the Russian establishment.
Autonomy for the Russian eastern Ukraine would have avoided this completely, but would not have sold many F35’s. We have been demanding something like having Chicago totally control Texas, except Kiev is probably more corrupt than even Chicago.
We are letting our defense industries control everything. F35’s for everyone, buy now pay later.
Apparently the supply of neon gas which comes out of Ukraine is being cut off making the chip shortage become even worse. Neon gas is a critical part of chip production. More thousands of new F150’s and Silverado’s parked uncompleted due to chip shortages.
Putin sees expansion of NATO as a threat.
Projection, on Putin’s part.
Were he the leader of a nation that respected the rights of his own people, he would not be inclined to expansion of authoritarian rule and NATO would pose no threat to his Russia whatsoever, elitist conspiracies notwithstanding.
Both he, and the cultural Marxists the paleocons are obsessing over and giving Putin a pass in their fear of them, need to lose.
Some commenters here have bought into the Putinist lie that there was a coup in Ukraine in 2014. There was not. Yanukovych had a deal that allowed him to remain in office until the end of his term. Instead, the man, who had sold his soul to Putin, ran and abandoned his office. Many of the Berkut, which was the agency responsible for the 100+ murders on the Maidan, also ran to their buddy Putin.
Putin has done nothing but tell a string of lies about Ukraine.
It only takes one counter example to falsify a theory. I offer Iraq.
What”s old is new and what’s new is old. Welcome to the triumphant return of the regime topplers. The new neocons same as the old.
Nice government you have there Putin. Be a shame if something were to happen to it.
That NATO is no threat to the Russian government, Putin, is prima facia false.
Meanwhile, the USA’s current Theoden sits on his throne, literally decomposing before the eyes of his subjects–I mean “citizens,” of course–and mumbles words that have been put in his mouth by Grima Wormtongue, a’/k/a, Ron Klain. Of course, Grima is not composing those words himself, but at the behest of a higher authority, once known as The Eye That Never Sleeps, Sauron or in its contemporary manifestation, blithely called Globohomo by those who recognize the hierarchy. It has been decreed that the Hobbits of Middle Earth shall serve the interest of Sauron, but there is still hope that the Scouring of the Shire may yet come to pass. That is the only thing that provides solace.
That is rich and fantastic, “we” are responsible for the dead Ukranians.
Damn, and I thought “we” were not responsible for all the ills of world.
The totality of our evil clownness.
Dave Prince;
Because Iraq is similar to Eastern Europe? Or because Vlad invading Ukraine is similar to the US invading Iraq?
When you state your one argument that will be a start.
GB writes “[March 3, 2022 at 9:17] Don,
When Poland and other former Warsaw Pact countries joined NATO they had no reasoned basis for assuming that Russia would seek to gobble them up as the Soviets had done. They simply and understandably weren’t willing to risk it.”
So, past behaviour isn’t “reasoned basis”? And what of Germany? They had plenty of reasons to fear Germany. And reasons to be reluctant cozying up to Germany. But NATO plus the EU plus the US was sufficient oversight of Big Bad Germany for them to look past this, given the riches the EU had achieved. Peaceful,y, too. And without rattling their security.
And to be fair, Poland has been Europe’s brightest single star in the past 20 years.
Russia? Anything to pull in Poland? To reward her to suck up to the Bear? Or anything approaching the reassurances that Russia is at peace? Stalled theater nuke weapons treaty that went South with the US during the Obama years, and that’s if on disarmament.
It’s actually sad and disturbing, Geoffrey — if you’re a Pole, methinks. But can you concede the point?
German turned pacifist. But Russia? Hardly. Maybe never anything comparable to the changes is Deutschland and Japan.
Would it be simply too, too crazy to conjecture that it seems that Putin has something that “Biden” needs?
And “Biden” has something that Putin needs?
Neither of them really can reveal what any of these things are….though Putin does have an edge here (it’s pretty clear what HE needs…even if the scope and duration of it all may be a bit murky, to some, at least); whereas “Biden has to tread a fine line (since “he”‘d really hate it if became clear what “he” needs—though at some point—soon, perhaps—that may not really matter to him. Perhaps.).
In the meantime, though, as long as Putin mutters something about Nukes, then it seems that “Biden” can breathe easy…and with him, Putin.
We already know “Biden” needs Putin’s oil. (This way he can screw over “his” country and help out “his” buddy…or, as “he” might put it, STILL HAVE SOME KIND OF LEVERAGE over him…and who knows? “he may even believe that.)
We already know “he” needs Putin’s support with the new “IMPROVED” Iran “Deal” (even if we really are probably not SUPPOSED To know this).
We know that “Biden” tried to help out his pal by getting Zylensky to flee the scene and leave a leadership vacuum (though “Biden” can, and does, claim that “he” was only trying to “save” Zylensky from a “treacherous” situation; and who knows? “he” may even believe it himself—did I say “treacherous”?); alas, that didn’t pan out all too well (did it?) and so Putin is a bit off-schedule and not all that pleased about it. (Well one could argue that “Biden” did “his” best to get Zylensky out of the picture; ah well, life’s like that, sometimes…)
We also know (though we’re not supposed to) that there’s something “not quite right” about Joe Biden’s—and his son Hunter’s—relationship with that Ukrainian energy giant, “Burisma”, especially Joe Biden’s purported interference in Ukrainian government affairs to enable, or rather protect, that particular “not quite right” something. Now all that stuff was not supposed to see the light of day (and by rights it shouldn’t have—and we’re still NOT supposed to know anything about it). Anyway, there appears to be a problem that must be solved. Perhaps some, or all, of any possible existing evidence might be able to—somehow—disappear. Maybe?…but how?
One thing we know is clear: a father will do ANYTHING to save his child….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4Q9iKpy9Pw
This is what an article looks like when written by someone who isn’t well-versed on the issue.
This idea that Russia invaded Ukraine because of NATO is an oversimplification. It isn’t credible for either side to use.
Ignoring NATO’s strategy to isolate Russia (and that has been their post-USSR strategy) completely removes all credibility.
The idea that Russia sees NATO as a threat and that’s the only reason NATO continues to expand towards Russia is one-sided and false. Both sides still see each other as rivals. That wasn’t the case for Russia in the early 2000s.
Simple fact is that NATO, unwilling to trust post-Soviet Russia, pushed Russia away from the West. We had a chance to embrace them and we didn’t. Putin asked to join NATO because he wanted Russia to be accepted by Western Europe. He just didn’t want to wait in line, he wanted to be treated as an equal, and NATO didn’t trust him because he was ex-KGB.
Failures on all sides and distrust of one another have led us here. Anyone pushing a Russia always bad, NATO always good narrative is intellectually deficient on this issue.
Ukraine isn’t about reviving the Soviet Union, it’s about healing a wound many Russians see as a divided family. Putin wants Belarus and Ukraine brought back into the family, even if it’s just a geopolitical economic alliance. The problem is that most Ukrainians don’t feel that way and Putin isn’t accepting it. Likely because of the dire population scenario in Russia.
Almost all foreign policy grandee’s stated at the time of NATO expansion first to Poland then others that this was a grave geopolitical blunder to use Talleyrand’s terminology.
Care to show us an index of just who said that and in-context quotations of just what they said?
I see the argument about Ukrainian corruption, past and present. Russia, ditto. And Belarus. Putin is more brutal than the others, but still, corruption is endemic to the area. The Bidens knew that, and made money off it.
The argument, from my point of view, boils down to this: There’s a psychopath living a few doors down. He used to own more of the neighborhood, but lost properties to foreclosure. He’s got numerous guns and lots of ammunition. I buy guns and ammo to protect myself from the crazy guy, and my neighbor, a house nearer to the psycho, wants one too, and I help him get it. When the psycho does what psychos do, uses his weaponry to take back some of the properties he thinks he owns, it’s my fault.
Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, there were only 2 reasons for NATO’s continued existence:
To come up with horseshit excuses as to why they wouldn’t defend member countries.
To spend as much American tax $$$ as possible keeping their uniforms shiny and new.
Poke the bear analogy is spot on.
Art Deco,
“As far as the Russians are concerned, NATO on their border is expecting them to permit a nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.” GB
“They could be hit from Dublin by an ICBM, so how much of a buffer zone do they want under their control?
While we’re at it, 8 of the 10 states they demanded be expelled from NATO are not on their border.’
They could be hit from Montana silos. The issue is not Russia being under threat from Western ICBMs. The most serious issue by far for Russia is NATO upon its border because that gives NATO, i.e. the West, a first strike capability that leaves Russia entirely vulnerable. That resultant reality is inarguable.
There is no strategic, military based counter argument. The only argument against it is the assertion that NATO is a peaceful, defensive alliance. There’s evidence against that assertion but even if true, it’s irrelevant from Russia’s national security perspective. I’ve twice listed all of the highly knowledgeable experts who agree that to be Russia’s perspective, from top State dept. to military to academics.
Is it not negotiation 101 to demand much more than you’re actually willing to settle for? Putin has to know that the West is not going to agree to more than the prior status quo. He has to know that none of those 8-10 NATO members are going to be expelled.
What he actually needs is western Ukraine a neutral buffer state and the Baltic States to be demilitarized as well.
” Oh, and when they’ve annexed the Ukraine, they’ll need more buffer states.”
That would be true if he fully incorporates western Ukraine into Russia. The Dnipro River is the natural dividing line between western and eastern Ukraine. I do agree that if Putin annexes all of the Ukraine, he places NATO Poland upon his border. Though he’d have much more distance between NATO’s Poland based weapon systems and Moscow than if they are on the Ukraine/Russia border.
om,
“But your rationalizations and explaining of events from Vlad’s perspective, since you seem to imply you know his motivations, are not a mark of objectivity.
I have only argued that I understand Putin’s/Russia’s military motivation for NATO weapon systems being on Russia’s border as a inviolable red line. That is an entirely objective assertion.
“Regarding WEF/Dravos and Schwab that is additional Vlad spin.”
Wow! I didn’t realize that WEF/Dravos and Schwab had no global agenda. An agenda to which Putin is an obstacle.
“Because I’m notorious for promoting the Great Reset and the effete global elite (not).”
I never accused you of “promoting the Great Reset and the effete global elite”. That’s a strawman argument. I responded to your repeated accusation that I’m acting as “Vlad’s boy” and “Vlad’s Psaki” by simply asserting that to be no more true of me than that you are a Schwab supporter. Either your comprehension is lacking or you’re intentionally being obtuse. Given your repeated snide remarks, I vote for the latter.
TJ @ 9:02,
“So, past behaviour isn’t “reasoned basis”?”
It is as I said understandable, but in 1999 when Poland, Hungary and the Chech republic joined NATO, the Soviet Union was long gone.
Putin had just taken over from Yeltsin. Russia simply hadn’t the military resources to invade those nations. So it was a proactive, ‘just in case’ move by those nations. Joining an alliance in which the US extended its protective umbrella was a deal too good to let pass.
When Germany was unified and joined NATO, the West utterly dominated the region. All the Warsaw pact nations had left a collapsed Soviet Union and Russia had no ability to project power to East Germany.
In the late 90’s, no Russian including Putin ever had any expectations that Poland could be seduced back into Russia’s arms. The history of Poland’s Solidarity Movement in reaction to Soviet oppression made that a non-starter. Self-determination appears to have been Poland’s desire for perhaps a millennium.
Russia had long lost trust in the West by the time that the stalled theater nuke weapons treaty went South with the US during the Obama years. An upon what basis would Putin trust anything Obama assured him of?
No I’m not a Pole, my ancestry is Portuguese, French, British with some Inca Indian also in the mix. Entirely natural born American.
Jen, you ignorant slut!
Oops, that is the other Jen.
Jen Britain:
You keep repeating Vlad’s talking points while claiming them to be your own original thoughts. Others have repeatedly pointed out that the Baltics, Poland, Finland and other nations have no intention of being Vlad’s vassal, doormat, or pacifier. But yet you persist.
Jen, you are obstinacy and obtuseness personified.
Vlad was so clever, Jen, that the Germans are now doubling their defense budget. Does Vlad get to veto that too?
Jen spin of recent history from a Vlad view. Goes right along with the Jen (Vlad) spin on current events. Somebody’s got to do it.
The real absurdity of the “Russians, Ukranians, other states — all Russians at heart” is the obvious: If they were all “Russians at heart”, then why would you need a military to “bring them together”?
How freaking DUH is that?
You don’t need a military to make Wyoming go along with West Virginia to go along with Texas. We ARE “Americans” (Yes, the choice of states was fairly intentional, there).You cannot force a polity together and claim they all belong.
More critically, once a sub-nation has separated away for long enough that there is an entire generation of children who have never known the “originator’s” rule, there is no just way to use military force to bring it back into the fold. There are plenty who argue there is no just way to EVER use military to bring a sub-nation back into the fold (ala, “The Tyrant Lincoln” argument).
But surely when it’s been apart for that long, then it behooves any polity to recognize that you have to appeal to the former sub-nation’s interests — politically, financially, and socially — to make them want to re-join you. To address the issues and concerns which caused the parting in the first place, and to resolve the differences by diplomacy, not force.
I do agree with the western NATO critics to this extent: It’s been thirty years since European defense became properly a European problem, not an American problem. And the rise of Great Russia under Putin, and the subjugation of Ukraine, to be followed by others, are European problems. Germany is in a mess today, and it’s Germany’s own fault, for following the “green” ideology instead of common sense.
OUR problem is that the current US administration also buys into the “green” ideology and is putting us in the same energy stranglehold.
Spartacus, as a fellow Detroiter I thank you for posting your experiences on life in the former USSR. Brings back some vivid memories. I spent 8 years in Georgia building a business and have similar experiences – although after Saakashvili came to power corruption for the most part was tamed. I would suggest a book that describes what life was like in the turbulent times after the dissolution of the Soviet Empire.
https://www.amazon.com/Life-Scorpions-Real-Thriller/dp/B08MN7L3BX
Exiting times….I could have written several chapters myself.
Casey: “NATO didn’t trust him [Putin] because he was ex-KGB”
Being ex-KGB is a really, really, really good reason not to trust someone.
Once the Soviet Union ceased to exist, there were only 2 reasons for NATO’s continued existence:
You forgot the actual reason: they were hedging that Russian expansionism would resurface after a period of time. And they’ve been proven correct. Nothing about the presence of the NATO alliance induces the Russian political class to covet Ukrainian territory. In fact, almost no governments in the world today covet foreign territory absent an irredentist claim derived from a border bisecting an ethnic group. Russia might assert such a claim, but it would be to a scatter of border counties in Kazakhstan or to one city in Estonia. There are other countries who contend that this piece or that piece of territory are theirs according to some antique map (see Guatemala’s claim to Belize). Almost all such claims are pro forma and the government in question has no discernible intention of attempting to enforce them.
What we have here is a head of state contending that a neighboring country has no legitimate existence and that it has been captured by nefarious forces who have no reality outside of the speaker’s imagination. Well, there are two examples of this since 1945: Korea in 1950 and VietNam between 1959 and 1975. The ambitions of Kim Il Sung and Ho Chih Minh did not derive from their being ‘baited’ by some other power. They could at least argue that the political boundary they were transgressing was fairly novel.
Note, every component of the Soviet Union departed in 1991. The excuses employed for this invasion are sufficiently detached from the physical and social world they could be repurposed to manufacture an excuse to invade any one of those 14 former union republics. And you’ll blame the United States government every time.
Ignoring NATO’s strategy to isolate Russia (and that has been their post-USSR strategy) completely removes all credibility.
Define ‘isolate’.
Yep that 2% that NATO countries pledge to spend in national defense is so threatening to Vlad that they should pledge to Vlad to spend 0%, eh, Jen?
Mother Russia Treaty Alliance (aka Vlad’s blankie) is clearly needed. Membership not voluntary.
Or just tweak NATO, now to have the purpose of Not Antagonizing The Oligarch. Again membership in the new NATO is not voluntary.
}}} when the German and French elites are trying to seize control of European integration from the Anglo-Saxons and assemble a united Europe?
…And FAILING?
ROTLMAO.
The picture of a “United Europe” is collapsing. If there is a UE in the future, it’s because it’s all become part of a Caliphate, not because the Euro nations decided they liked each other enough to form a true union equivalent to the USA.
Yes, Minister:
https://vimeo.com/85914510
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvYuoWyk8iU
it’s been thirty years since European defense became properly a European problem, not an American problem.
Again, we have about 60,000 troops in Europe. There were 4x that number 50 years ago. AFAIK, only Britain and France have assets outside the European theatre. European military spending is oriented toward placement and action in Europe.
Art Deco @ 10:41 am
“Almost all foreign policy grandee’s stated at the time of NATO expansion first to Poland then others that this was a grave geopolitical blunder to use Talleyrand’s terminology.”
Care to show us an index of just who said that and in-context quotations of just what they said?
For your reading and viewing pleasure
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1498491107902062592.html
We aim to please
But to complete the thought (?) on the Not Antagonizing The Oligarch (NATO) charter; members of the new NATO must pledge to contribute 10% of their wealth to The Oligarch to attone for past antagonizations. Membersip is compulsory, compliance is manditory, eh, Jen?
13 minutes.
There was always a reasonable basis to assume Russia would gobble up nearby countries. They had always done so when they could, long before the Soviet Union.
Also the Patriot missiles we Have over there are a defensive system. And the only part of Russia they can reach is Kaliningrad, detached from the rest of Russia, and formally part of East Prussia. The Russians ethnically cleansed it at the end of WW2.
om,
“You keep repeating Vlad’s talking points while claiming them to be your own original thoughts. Others have repeatedly pointed out that the Baltics, Poland, Finland and other nations have no intention of being Vlad’s vassal, doormat, or pacifier. But yet you persist.”
Is Col. Douglas McGregor repeating Putin’s talking points? Did State Dept. head Kennan and, are Kissinger, CIA Director Burns, Ambassador Collins and Prof. Mearsheimer repeating Putin’s talking points?
BTW, I independently reached my conclusions before being aware of any of the above men’s positions.
When I read that the Soviets under Gorbachev, Yeltsin’s Russia and from 1999 under Putin had all stated that NATO on Russia’s border was entirely unacceptable… I examined that assertion from a strategic military perspective and reached my independent conclusions.
At that time I was only aware of Putin’s desire for Russia to reacquire its former superpower status.
Are you implying that I’m lying about that?
I’ve never suggested nor even implied that I favor the Baltics, Poland, Finland and other nations becoming vassal, doormat, or pacifier states for Putin. In fact, I disfavor submission of any State to another, while recognizing strategic imperatives in a fallen world.
You do realize that strawman arguments and snide labels are an indication of a petty character? Fortunately, sticks and stones…
‘The Gorbachev Prospect’: An Exchange
Josef Skvorecky, reply by George F. Kennan
since no one will see it here i will wait and put it up elswere..
For your reading and viewing pleasure
Are you trying to be cute? Your ‘top strategic thinkers’ include a piece of office plankton employed by a series of NGOs; a diplomatic cable by a career FSO which makes passing reference to Russian complaints (rendered as if it had been generated on a typewriter with a courier font) which even you’re contending was written years after the 10 countries in question had entered; a newspaper columnist who has never offered a non-stereotyped observation about foreign relations; a British diplomat referring to an event which has never happened; a remark from Robert Gates again making reference to a hypothetical which never occurred; a remark from an Australian politician which is informed by a bizarre historiography; a remark by another Australian politician making use of the term ‘provocation’ to describe an event that had occurred more than a decade earlier; another remark by the same FSO referring to an event (Ukraine entering NATO) which has never occurred; a remark from an Italian (post-Communist) politician which reiterates what you said (he was once a sociology professor); a remark by a retired Soviet PR official again referring to an event that never happened; a remark by the late Stephen Cohen (a historian) again referring to an event which has never occurred; a remark by that strategic thinker Noam Frigging Chomsky; a remark from the former Secretary of Defense; and a remark from another career FSO who was once an ambassador to Russia; remarks by John Mearsheimer; and a remark by Henry Kissinger on an event which never occurred.
By my count, you’ve got Kissinger, Mearsheimer, Matlock, Perry, and Gates who might fit under the header of ‘strategic thinker’, and only Mearsheimer, Matlock, and Perry are referring to policies actually executed. And it’s a bit rich to refer to something as a ‘provocation’ when the events in question occur 18 years apart.
Jen:
Already beat that dead horse about citing experts, try Lt. Col. Vindmann, or General Mark “White Rage” Milley for military expertise?
You hold to lofty principles, but give Vlad a pass, sorry Jen.
So Vlad wants to become the superpower that the USSR couldn’t sustain 30 years ago. Sorry, I give about 0 “F’s ” for the past glories of the USSR or the Tsar when the current despot is doing the usual in Europe.
All he needs is Ukraine, Moldova, the Baltics, Finland, and Poland to be subservient in his goals, and you are good with that it seems.
Xi-land might go along with that for now but history has shown that despots seldom get along for long, much to the detriment of the West.
Any more strawmen Jen?
Gorbachev, Yeltsin’s Russia and from 1999 under Putin had all stated that NATO on Russia’s border was entirely unacceptable… I examined that assertion from a strategic military perspective and reached my independent conclusions.
Once more with feeling: the only part of NATO which is ‘on Russia’s border’ is that which abuts the Kaliningrad exclave and that which abuts the eastern border of Estonia and Latvia. There are about 5,000 NATO troops in the Baltic states or parked in Poland near Kaliningrad. It’s a tripwire force.
Jen displays his unique use of language; the Baltics and other nations adjacent to Vlad land must be neutral and possess no offensive weapons that could threaten Vlad land. But that doesn’t make them vassals, subservient, or existentially dependent on Vlad?
Others more eloquent than I have pointed this out to you.
Interesting story of his experiences in Eastern Europe by I AM Spartacus. They track with what I have learned over the years.
I had a long conversation with a lumber investor who tried to start a lumber company in Russia. The U.S. was killing the lumber industry here, so he decided to go to the largest forests in the world and do what he knew best. After five years, he gave up. He couldn’t deal with the unending corruption – in both the government and the criminals. (Sometimes they were in cahoots.) Only the most corrupt, tough guys manage to rise to the top in this system. Thus, their society of thuggish oligarchs and regular citizens who get the short end. It’s the type of society that Marx saw as unjust. Where those few at the top take all the wealth at the expense of the masses. But in these thuggish corruptocracies the oligarchs also control all the muscle – military, police, and even the government. It’s an evil system. It creates more wealth than a communist system, but it’s still oppressive of the citizens.
We are now in a new Cold War with Corruptocracies – mainly China and Russia. Their leaders know that our system of democracy threatens their ability to continue their gangster governments. Thus, their hostility to the West. Unfortunately, we are not fully engaged in this battle. Most of us don’t even understand it.
At the same time, we are under siege from within by the 25% or so of our population who are Marxist true believers in the wonders of communism. They call themselves Progressives/Greens/Climate Change Warriors/etc., but that’s a smokescreen. It’s all about ending private property and having the government manage our lives – they know best.
Bad times folks, bad times.
For the record, GeoffB, I notice that you state your opinions calmly, and respond to disagreement without being disagreeable.
Thanks for being civil on what is, after all, a blog where people congregate to chat and discuss.
I’ll assume that Zaphod is on another timeout?
I mean, speaking of bomb-throwers LOL
JimNorCal:
I put up a previous comment about it, but I assume most people probably didn’t see that comment. So at some point I may do a post on it. At any rate, Zaphod is banned. My comment explaining why is here.
Where those few at the top take all the wealth at the expense of the masses.
The skew in Russia’s income distribution is, per the World Bank, about the same as ours. Salable assets are invariably much more concentrated than income. Most of a country’s wealth is in its human capital, and that’s not salable as an asset.
Russia’s had a dynamic economy the last 20 years; the Ukraine has not.
At that time I was only aware of Putin’s desire for Russia to reacquire its former superpower status.
I certainly hope he has no such desire. The term ‘superpower’ referred to the peculiar bipolar post-war order. I think Kenneth Waltz has argued that bipolar systems are more stable than multipolar systems, but that’s a minority viewpoint in that subdiscipline (FWIW). The U.S. and China have the population and productive capacity to be competitors in a bipolar order. Russia can be an important country in a multi-polar order. It would be properly termed a ‘great power’, not a ‘superpower’. In truth, our country is so distracted, damaged, and lacking in fundamental cohesion, I cannot see us acting as a superpower anymore.
JimNorCal:
Z (Zaphod) has been banned.
Neo gave the reasons he was banned in a comment a few (?) days ago and some examples of recent things of his that she did not allow to be posted. Neo said that she might elaborate in another posting.
IIRC Rufus T. Firefly also noted his absence a few days ago and was concerned that it could be a health issue or a problem with the authorities in Hong Kong. Neo’s comment was a reply Rufus.
And just like that Jim, Neo had just replied better than I, with a link to her comment.
Casey:
No one is suggesting that Putin is trying to revive the Soviet Union itself. He is trying to incorporate the old land mass of the Soviet Union, which was in turn roughly based on the old Russian Empire.
Against their will.
Putin is not a Communist. He’s a different flavor of bad.
Thank you neo
Art Deco on at 3:47 pm. “The skew in Russia’s income distribution is, per the World Bank, about the same as ours.”
You must be related to Sheldon Cooper.
om,
That’s a fine leftist tactic, when presented with numerous expert but contrary opinions, don’t attempt rebuttal, just declare it to be beating a dead horse. Then disingenuously offer as implied counter opinion, a known liar and a derelict in his duty JCoS, right…
Since when does a neighboring nation declaring itself to be neutral amount to making them vassals, subservient, or existentially dependent on Russia?
And since when does the possession of offensive weapons… not pose a potential threat?
Sadly it’s not your eloquence that is lacking but common civility.
Implicit in the argument that it is NATO’s fault is the idea of equivalency between Russian interests and American interests.
However, this ignores the interests of other nations such as Poland and Ukraine. As such it isn’t logically consistent.
Why should Ukraine require Russian approval for NATO membership?
Don:
Why would Ukraine require Russia’s approval? Because according to Putin, Ukraine isn’t a “real” country and is actually just Russia by a different name – a vassal state of Russia who should rightly control it.
Art Deco,
I agree that the NATO forces in the Baltic States are a trip wire. But the issue is not the current nations upon Russia’s border. Rather it is the prospect of NATO upon the Ukraine/Russian border. Therein lies the irreconcilable difference.
Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, every leader from Gorbachev on has consistently, repeatedly and insistently declared that the Ukraine gaining membership in NATO is their red line.
Art Deco @ 3:02,
Well you certainly disposed of those expert opinions. Not. The opposite of the flaw in logic known as an appeal to authority is to declare those cited as authoritative to… not be credible. And after making that declaration, simply pretend that settles the matter.
Every one of the men you mock stated that they believed that NATO moving to incorporate the Ukraine into NATO would be a huge mistake. In 2020, NATO formally announced that the Ukraine will become a member of NATO. So those men’s warnings are entirely relevant to current events.
But hey, go ahead and demonstrate the logical flaws in Mearsheimer, Matlock, and Perry’s opinions.
BTW, Mearsheimer has since 2015 been stating that in his view, we are emerging into a multipolar world.
So 18 yr provocations only work in one direction? Russia to NATO but not NATO to Russia? Got it.
I’ll happily grant you the semantic ‘superpower’ for ‘greater power’.
Jen:
Why does Vlad get to force any nation to declare they will disarm and be “neutral” and not an impediment to his plans? Oh I forgot, the 13th Commandment of Jen.
Does disagreeing whatever pops out from your keyboard make that disagreement “leftist?” Interesting, Jen.
Oh the awesome obstinate power of Jen!
Don and neo,
To avoid war with a nuclear armed State it is prudent not to offer intolerable provocation.
It’s not Russian approval that is at stake but prohibitive treaty obligations;
“In Istanbul (1999) and in Astana (2010), the US and the other 56 countries in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) signed documents “that contained interrelated principles to ensure the indivisibility of security.”
What does that mean?
It means that parties to the agreement must refrain from any action that could affect the security interests of the other members. It means that parties cannot put military bases and missile sites in locations that pose a threat to other members.”
“So, when NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg claims that “every nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements”, he is being deliberately misleading. Stoltenberg knows that both NATO and the United States agreed that they “would NOT strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of others.” He also knows that NATO and the US are legally obligated to act in accordance with the agreements they signed in the past.”
“The United States concentrates on the right of states to choose alliances, enshrined in the declarations of the Istanbul (1999) and Astana (2010) OSCE Summits.
At the same time, it ignores the fact that these particular documents condition this right on the obligation not to strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others. The main problem is that NATO countries are strengthening their security by weakening Russia. We do not agree with such an approach.” Russian Ambassador Anatoly Antonov (Tass)
You cannot eliminate the major buffer state between NATO and Russia, gaining the capability to place nuclear cruise missiles just 13 min. from Moscow and, then claim it not to be at the expense of Russia’s national security.
Cavalierly dismissing those legitimate concerns by assuring Russia that NATO is a peaceful, defensive alliance. That ‘extenuating circumstances’ justified NATO aggression in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria. (full disclosure, I supported our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq while repeatedly seeing it as poorly handled, I no longer believe in ‘changing hearts and minds’)
Demanding Russia accept a NATO Ukraine is the equivalent of allowing a stranger to put a knife to your throat, while they assure you they’ll never use it.
As far as the NATO missions in Afghanistan, Libya, and Serbia . . .
Afghanistan was legit due to 9/11.
The other two were foolish, and likely intended for Clinton campaign ads. However Libya was a long term terror state, although at time of intervention it had been behaving itself. And the situation in Serbia was a bloody mess.
Putin is perfectly capable of understanding those events. He understood what was going on and knows NATO wasn’t going to invade Russia.
His NATO concern is simply that NATO membership means countries can’t be gobbled up without great risk. Which, of course, is exactly why countries over there prize NATO membership.
Reading OSCE stuff suggests an organization with a form of AIDS. It reads like the worst kind of international policy mambo-jumbo.
Ukraine is a member state. And the Astana declaration says member states get to choose their own alliances.
The statement about not being able to improve security at the expense of any other states security is incoherent. Anything you do to improve security would violate that.
Mumbo jumbo I meant
OSCE quote: “The security of each participating State is inseparably linked to that of all others. Each
participating State has an equal right to security. We reaffirm the inherent right of each and
every participating State to be free to choose or change its security arrangements, including
treaties of alliance, as they evolve. Each State also has the right to neutrality. Each
participating State will respect the rights of all others in these regards. They will not
strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States. ”
Ukraine joining NATO would fit in with the “free to choose” part. If the part about “he expense of the security of other States” means Ukraine can’t join NATO there are some serious contradictions in this document.
Gregory Harper on March 3, 2022 at 7:15 pm said:
Kate:
3
I know that the Baltic states are NATO members but I just can’t see us going to war with Russia over Latvia or Estonia.
——————————–
What makes you think that there’s going to be any debate if he jumps into the Baltic states?
The Poles absolutely HATE the Russians, and they’ve got a very modern military. Putin’s forces cross those borders and the Polish army will be rolling through Minsk in a day. Russia will respond, Germany will have no choice, and we’re off to the races.
I hope that Putin doesn’t think the way you do.
Geoffrey! My man — you and I Am Spartacus have been my favorite oracular posters here for one and a half years, at least.
Yet there you are. Out on a limb…sawing yourself away from reality, lost in circular logic. (To be continued SOON. Please excuse me, but my El Cheapo motel in NW Mexico has no internet, and I have to depend on the kindness of VIP, etc [like a 7-11]. And only once or twice a day.)
As to Authority of Mearshimer. Doesn’t he himself declare that his take on Ukrain is not merely a minority opinion. But a small minority? Among poli sci IR experts? Yes, he does.
So, how does GB come here loudly asserting his Uber respectability? Geoffrey, since you’ve arrived at your opinions yourself, do you mean to tell us that you’ve come to your “respect the neighbourhood psycho’s” projections strategy (to caricature Kate’s simple analogy), and done your own head count of your side? One that contradicts Meashimer’s?
(I’m not asking for a friend who perhaps needs an intervention. I’m asking because I’m confused by your deviationism – if that’s what it may be.)
Art Deco has been holding up my side, along with Don and few folks like him.
A few further corrections. Art Deco avers “The U.S. and China have the population and productive capacity to be competitors in a bipolar order. Russia can be an important country in a multi-polar order. It would be properly termed a ‘great power’, not a ‘superpower’. In truth, our country is so distracted, damaged, and lacking in fundamental cohesion, I cannot see us acting as a superpower anymore.”
Peter Zeihan’s argues that nukes alone do no a hegemon or “Superpower” make. China hopes to do this. Russia cannot.
He goes on: only the US has the Super Carrier. No one else does. We have some 12. And 4 to 5 are available at any one time. And these military platforms allow the US to project useful military power almost anywhere in the world, save deep inside the continents (eg, inner Asia, like where most of Russia is, like Afghanistan).
These are operationally complex machines like a mobile military city.
If the US chooses to use it well, there is no peer. If we, as Art Deco fears, choose to disable our ginormous investment in these assets, then we are indeed in the multipolar world that some believe we are in.
The unevaluated but deeply impotant issues not bitten off here is nationalism and its fate in Europe in general and in Ukraine in particular. And that is the realm where GBs (as well as Putin’s) ratiocinations face their acid test.
To which I shall return.
Geoffrey (Jen):
Tell me again the fable about the 13 minutes and explain why Roosia has and has had nuclear weapons in Kaliningrad. How many minutes to Bonn, Stockholm, Helsinki, Warsaw, Paris, or London? Not to mention all the Baltics, probably <100 miles.
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/
Geoffrey (Jen);
An interesting quote from the 2018 fas.org article:
“NATO has for several years urged Russia to move its nuclear weapons further back from NATO borders. With Russia’s modernization of its conventional forces, there should be even less, not more, justification for upgrading nuclear facilities in Kaliningrad.”
https://fas.org/blogs/security/2018/06/kaliningrad/
NATO asks and lives with it. Vlad invades on a possibility and a pretext. A basic difference between the behavior of an alliance and the behavior of a despot.
Geoffrey (Jen):.
Vlad wasn’t scared of cruise missiles Geoffrey it was THADD. A theater ballistic missile defense system. You know a system to shoot down (cough) nuclear missiles from Vlad-land. Is that a defensive or offensive system (Vlad certainly felt it was repugnant). That is standard Soviet protest; anti-ballistic missile defense is bad because it makes their threats of nuclear annihilation less credible.
Poor Vlad he has had to live with this situation since 2019 when the THADD was temporarily deployed to the NATO country Romania. Intolerable.
https://www.army.mil/article/226644/thaad_redeploys_from_romania
As a US State Dept. spokesman said – “I can’t speak to moves that haven’t been announced, that are hypothetical, that may not come to pass,”
Vlad didn’t wait too long,
https://eurasiantimes.com/ukraine-wants-thaad-missile-defense-systems-to-counter-rus
Then that evil THADD was moved in 2022 from Guam to Spain (good for Xi bad for Vlad). Who will Vlad invade next?
https://defbrief.com/2022/03/04/us-army-moves-thaad-missile-defense-system-from-guam-to-spain/