A day that will live forever in infamy in European history

24 Feb, 2022 at 14:37 | Posted in Politics & Society | 38 Comments

How do you grieve for a nation? I don’t know.

But one thing I do know is that February 24th 2022 is one of the saddest days I and all my brothers and sisters in Ukraine have ever experienced. The verdict of history will be harsh.

.

38 Comments

  1. Nanikore,
    .
    Re Chomsky’s explanation regarding the Ukraine situation.
    .
    He offers the same perspective as does Carpenter.
    .
    He ignores the basic fact that there are two strategic competitors both with enormous nuclear weapons systems confronting each other in Europe.
    .
    Commentators on the left seem to presume that the NATO has no strategic interests in Europe and it is only those of Russia that should be of concern and should have primacy. This is shear bullshit.
    .
    Because of these massive nuclear weapons systems there is a strategic stalemate in Europe. Russia has nothing to fear from NATO militarily unless some madman manages to take control of NATO and threaten Russia with nuclear destruction. Of course, we now have Putin, being the maniac threatening NATO with nuclear destruction. An insane act as there ever could be.
    .
    Chomsky, like all the other left commentators, ignores the desires of the peoples of the buffer states. They have all turned away from Russia. Why? Because the US manipulated them into so doing? – maybe. The fact remains they have chosen. There is no US gun at their heads unlike the Russian gun at their heads.
    .
    Chomsky talks about the nuclear weapons that threaten Russia. What about the ones that threaten Europe?
    .
    He says that Russia made concessions on the unification of Germany. The unification of Germany kept Germany in NATO and maintained NATO control over Germany and its warlike impulses. This was to Russia’s advantage.
    .
    He argues that the adoption of Minsk II could possibly solve the crisis. The reality is that Minsk II went nowhere because it was not in the interests of either hegemon.
    .
    The left bath themselves in a Russo-centric perspective and bias. This is not the real politik and ignores the peoples of the buffer states.
    .
    Russia succeeded for the last two decades in drawing Europe away from the US. Merkel and Germany were the main supplicants. They can now see where this has finally landed them and Europe. This is the cause of the Ukrainian situation. This pandering to Russia upset the strategic balance and resulted in Russian hubris. Now, at some economic cost to Europe, Europe is breaking its ties with Russia.
    .
    Russia has chosen the situation it is in. It has disturbed the strategic stalemate as it was and more than likely to its long term disadvantage.

    Comment by Henry Rech— 1 Mar, 2022 #

  2. Nanikore,
    .
    RE Carpenter’s Guardian article.
    .
    What do the Russians have to fear from the West militarily? Absolutely nothing.
    .
    Has a NATO country attacked Russia in the 75 years odd since the end of WWII? No.
    .
    Did NATO invade Russia at its weakest moment, at an opportunity probably never to be repeated? No.
    .
    Which country possess the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet? Russia.
    .
    Why shouldn’t this be of concern to the nations of Europe?
    .
    Who should decide where the border between NATO’s eastern flank and Russia’s western flank is?
    .
    Given the strategic military position, why is it that Russia should decide where this border is?
    .
    Do not the desires and aspirations of the mass of the peoples of the buffer nations count for anything?
    .
    Why can they not decide for themselves which way they want to turn?
    .
    Why can they not chose their means of defense?
    .
    Why should Europe pander to Russian paranoia and expansionism?

    Comment by Henry Rech— 1 Mar, 2022 #

    • Nanikore,
      .
      The trials and tribulations of the stupendously rich:
      .
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10552193/Bernie-tears-Putin-moving-precious-super-yacht-Ukraine-assault.html

      Comment by Henry Rech— 1 Mar, 2022 #

    • The US as the global hegemon has to act in the global interest. This may be against the ideal wishes of individual states.

      When the Warsaw Pact disbanded arguably NATO should have disbanded as well; if the Cold War had ended and Russia was no longer and adversary why was it still necessary?

      If they decide to keep it, at least they should have not expanded it as Bush/Baker promised at the time of German Reunification.

      Having gone ahead with eastward NATO and EU expansion a pathway to Russia’s eventual joining should have been made available. It is better to include these nations than isolate them, and now increasingly, corner them.

      A cornered nuclear power is a situation we want to avoid from the very beginning.

      By going ahead with NATO expansion to the borders of Russia and excluding it, the return of the Cold War became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The moderates in Russia have lost out to a hardliner. Russia is a nuclear power, that is the realism that Carpenter refers to: from this point we entered a geopolitical environment of distrust and great risk.

      Added to this, Russia in good faith took the US’ Jeffrey Sachs/MIT/IMF/Stanley Fischer advice. When these neo-liberal policies failed creating a social and political crisis, the west’s response has basically been “that’s no longer our problem”.

      It is hard to make sense from the news what is really happening. The media are fanning the flames of nationalistic fervour. But things need to be calmed down and negotiations and reassurances encouraged. It is not clear to me that Putin wishes to reestablish the Soviet Empire or put in place a puppet regime in Kiev. Looking at the map and the movements, it appears that Putin wants (and has almost completed) the linking of the disputed northern and eastern territories with the Crimea, the site of Russias southern naval headquarters. (He seems to also be targeting Kiev, but I doubt this is with a view to permanently occupying it – more likely it is tactical and perhaps something from which to secure concessions). He will also want Ukraine to be neutral without NATO weapons stationed there (we know this from the Minsk agreement which he feels has not been honoured).

      These are reasonable requests. If Israel was to accept a Palestinian State for sure they would not accept the stationing of nuclear weapons on it. (Also no surprise he decided early on to secure the nuclear facility at Chernobyl.) As the global hegemon the US has to think in the international interest : it has to decided that nuclear weapons on Palestinian or for that matter Japanese soil are not allowed as that would inflame regional tensions. It has decided that these states cannot make sovereign decisions on these matters.

      Comment by Nanikore— 2 Mar, 2022 #

    • Nanikore,
      .
      “When the Warsaw Pact disbanded arguably NATO should have disbanded as well..”
      .
      Did the Soviet nuclear arsenal disappear as well?
      .
      “..By going ahead with NATO expansion to the borders of Russia and excluding it..”
      .
      If they want to keep their nuclear arsenal why should they be allowed into NATO?
      .
      “Russia in good faith took the US’ Jeffrey Sachs/MIT/IMF/Stanley Fischer advice.”
      .
      After the yanks were kicked out Putin an his cronies proceeded to do the same but on steroids,
      .
      “It is not clear to me that Putin wishes to reestablish the Soviet Empire or put in place a puppet regime in Kiev.”
      .
      Putin has said he wants to remove the “nationalists’ from the Ukraine. What do you think that means?
      .
      “These are reasonable requests. ”
      .
      They are not reasonable requests.
      .
      Russia had nothing to fear militarily given the strategic stalemate – which Putin has now disturbed with his nuclear sabre rattling.
      .

      Comment by Henry Rech— 3 Mar, 2022 #

      • Did the Soviet nuclear arsenal disappear as well?
        .
        Did the NATO (UK, French, US) arsenal?

        “..By going ahead with NATO expansion to the borders of Russia and excluding it..”
        .
        If they want to keep their nuclear arsenal why should they be allowed into NATO?

        This is an outcome of 1945 which permits and limits powers allowed to have nuclear weapons to the Permanent Security Council Members (for very good reasons).
        .
        “Russia in good faith took the US’ Jeffrey Sachs/MIT/IMF/Stanley Fischer advice.”
        .
        “After the yanks were kicked out Putin an his cronies proceeded to do the same
        but on steroids”

        We mustn’t confuse historical episodes. Want we all wanted was for Glasnost and Perestroika and the moderates to succeed. China rightly ignored the Neo-classical economist’s advice. Very wisely they did not immediately dismantle the Command Era industrial structure. Russia must be kicking themselves for completely deregulating capital flows (left them very vulnerable to the US paralysing its financial sector). Wisely China has kept up very tight controls on capital exports, convertibility and foreign capital, especially short term capital, dependence.

        Stanley Fischer probably, and Jeffrey Sachs certainly, acted with good intent. But they are neo-classical economic modellers without a strong education in history. Russian leaders were perhaps a bit naive, but they thought they were getting state of the art advice on how to run a capitalist economy. The prescribed policies failed. These politicians were turfed out. Now the reality is we are dealing with a hard-liner (yet which I have argued, beyond the media haze of all sorts of misinformation from both sides) is making some very rational strategic calculations.
        .
        “Putin has said he wants to remove the “nationalists’ from the Ukraine. What do you think that means?”

        I don’t know about that – whether Putin seeks regime change in Ukraine. But what I do think he is trying to do is neutralise Ukraine as a potential NATO base for missiles and threat. As Chomsky says, the Ukraine is just too strategically serious for Russia to turn a blind eye to.

        “Russia had nothing to fear militarily given the strategic stalemate – which Putin has now disturbed with his nuclear sabre rattling.”

        It was not a stalemate, not after the accession of the Baltic States and especially after interference that overturned the Ukraine election – that was the last straw I think. It was an escalating series of events leading to more and more concern and distrust. Stephen Cohen said back in 2014 that the Cold War had returned. This was likely not a knee-jerk reaction of madness by Putin; it was something planned for some time. Perhaps what he ultimately wants is a serious commitment by NATO and Ukraine to abide by the Minsk Agreement.

        But all this goes back to events at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union and disbandment of the Warsaw Pact. In the highly prophetic words made 25 years ago by George Kennan, the supreme US geopolitical strategist:

        “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”

        .

        Comment by Nanikore— 3 Mar, 2022 #

      • “Did the NATO (UK, French, US) arsenal?”
        .
        That’s not the point. The point is disbandonment of the Warsaw Pact was not enough to allow Russia in.
        .
        “We mustn’t confuse historical episodes.”
        .
        Exactly. What followed the deployment of western advisors was all Russian doing.
        .
        “I don’t know about that ”
        .
        That’s what he has said. You just cannot/won’t accept the facts. I’ll see if I can find a link.
        .
        “As Chomsky says, the Ukraine is just too strategically serious for Russia to turn a blind eye to.”
        .
        So this excuses Russian murder of innocent people and their terrorization?!
        .
        “It was not a stalemate”
        .
        Of course it is. Both sides could annihilate the each other in seconds.
        .
        “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy …….. and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
        .
        For sure. But so what? NATO and Russia both have legitimate security concerns. In the end, what determines how far NATO can expand eastward is only permitted by the peoples of the states concerned. These states have all turned away from Russia. They want to be part of Europe and they are done with Russian oppression and interference in their affairs. Why can’t you get this? Why is it you blithely and consistently ignore their security interests and concerns and give primacy to the Russian position?
        .
        “especially after interference that overturned the Ukraine election ”
        .
        There is evidence that the Russians were actively involved in managing Yanukovych’s put down of the Euromaidan/Maidan protests. It wasn’t only the US meddling in Ukraine’s affairs. In the end, it was the people of Ukraine who tossed out the Russians.

        Comment by Henry Rech— 3 Mar, 2022 #

        • “Why can’t you get this? Why is it you blithely and consistently ignore their security interests and concerns and give primacy to the Russian position?”

          What isn’t wanted is WWIII. When Kennan warned that expanding NATO would lead to the emergence nationalistic, militaristic, anti-Western figure like Putin 25 years ago and would be “the most fateful error” – that is what he means.

          Countries may want to enter western alliances and regional customs unions. But letting them do so and expanding them at the wrong time may not be in long term interest of peace – and humanity.

          To start from the beginning, these are the types of geopolitical decisions hegemonic powers have to make that guarantee the stability of the world’s rule based system; which may sometimes overrule the ideal wishes of individual states.

          Comment by Nanikore— 5 Mar, 2022 #

        • “What isn’t wanted is WWIII. ”
          .
          Certainly. But this demonstrates my point that Russia is not under military threat from NATO. NATO has shown enormous restraint in the face of intolerable circumstances. It has shown this restraint because of the strategic stalemate.
          .
          However, a point may come where Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine cannot be further tolerated and compels NATO to act. Who knows where that point is or even if it exits.
          .
          “When Kennan warned that expanding NATO would lead to the emergence nationalistic, militaristic, anti-Western figure like Putin 25 years ago and would be “the most fateful error” – that is what he means.”
          .
          The evidence to date (going back 75 years) clearly demonstrates that NATO is not a military threat to Russia. This means Russian aggression is founded on rationales other than existential military threats. The Russian regime is paranoid and expansionist. It could be argued that Russia has moved to protect the pipeline that runs through Ukraine that carries its gas to Europe and to secure other resources (Ukraine has the largest iron ore resources on the planet and huge agricultural production, for instance). Such considerations render Kennan’s arguments specious.
          .
          “… these are the types of geopolitical decisions hegemonic powers have to make that guarantee the stability of the world’s rule based system;
          .
          This is bullshit. Russia complains that NATO has expanded eastwards. This has been possible only because the peoples in the buffer states have spurned Russia and turned towards Europe. NATO does not hold a gun to their heads, Russia does. NATO may influence the governments of these states but in the end it has been democratic action by the mass of these peoples that have motivated their turn to Europe.
          .
          “…which may sometimes overrule the ideal wishes of individual states.”
          .
          Tell this to the Ukrainian people who are being terrorized and murdered. Tell this also to the Finns and the Swedes who are this very minute contemplating joining NATO despite Russian threats.

          Comment by Henry Rech— 5 Mar, 2022 #

  3. Eight years ago, the Ukrainian people clearly demonstrated their preference. They were done with Russian oppression and interference in their polity and decidedly turned to the West.
    .
    Those that talk about the interference of the West in Russia’s (overblown) security interests repeatedly ignore the wishes of the peoples that have spurned Russia.
    .
    From Finland, through Belarus down to Georgia, these peoples have expressed their preferences. Russia in particular, puts no value on these desires.
    .
    Commentators speak as if these peoples do not exist.
    .
    In 2008, Russia seized Georgian territory. In 2014, it seized the Crimea and supported an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. It gives wholesale support to the despotic and brutal leader of Belarus against the clear wishes of the Belarusian people. These actions barely raised a whimper in the West.
    .
    The parallels between the current era and 1938 are stark.
    .
    Merkel’s legacy as a leader of Europe is the result of appeasement of and compliance with Russian interests. Russia, obviously, now has a pull on Germany via its supply of critical gas.
    .
    The Russian oligarch’s have so corrupted British politics that Britain is virtually toothless. (The Russian oligarchs launder their and Putin’s billions through the City of London and have contributed millions of pounds in donations to British political parties.)
    .
    The US is enfeebled by its devastating internal political turmoil and focus on the upcoming mid term elections.
    .
    The sanctions so far announced are laughable.
    .
    As history shows, an emboldened tyrant will not stop at the current endeavour but will go on to prosecute further his plans for domination.

    Comment by Henry Rech— 24 Feb, 2022 #

    • What exactly are you proposing Henry and Prof. Syll?
      .
      Henry is right in saying:
      “The sanctions so far announced are laughable.
      As history shows, an emboldened tyrant will not stop at the current endeavour but will go on to prosecute further his plans for domination.”
      .
      So should Sweden, Finland and Ukraine join NATO?
      https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10553723/Putin-turns-attention-Finland-Sweden-Kremlin-official-warns-nations.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ito=1490&ns_campaign=1490
      .
      And then what?
      A. More pacifist self-righteousness at the UN folllowed by Chinese takeover of Taiwan?
      B. Massive rearmament of valiant Ukraine?
      C. Surgical cruise missile strike to pulverse the tyrant Putin?
      D. NATO immediately calls Putin’s bluff with 10 decisive knock-out puches punches against the invading forces?
      .
      I would start with C if it is possible.

      Comment by Kingsley Lewis— 26 Feb, 2022 #

  4. Ukrainian nationalism = good
    Russian nationalism = bad

    is not a realistic formula for peace and cooperation.

    Ever since the EU and US subsidized the violent overthrow of an elected pro-Russian government in Ukraine in 2014, the West has continuously absolved itself and encouraged the worst elements in Ukraine. Agreements made that could have averted this day were not carried thru and increasingly outrageous political behavior hostile to Russia and Russians has gone unremarked in the West.

    If the horrific violence of war is to avoided, we have to be tough but realistic in insisting on negotiating inevitable conflicts on interest. But not on terms of what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is all that is negotiable.

    It is horrible, but only surprising if you have been stubbornly paying no attention to the war-mongering of the arms merchants of northern Virginia.

    Comment by Bruce Wilder— 24 Feb, 2022 #

    • I think the cynicism goes back even further. The IMF/MIT economist advised ‘shock therapy’ deregulation/fire sale policies dismantled the Russian industrial structure with huge implications for the Russian social fabric. The period of goodwill during Glasnost and Perestroika, a precious window period, was squandered. (China was more cautious in its transition, and in hindsight right.) The rapid eastward expansion of the EU and NATO was against a verbal guarantee given by Bush I and James Baker (who did act in good faith) that NATO would not expand ‘an inch further’ at the time of German reunification. After decades of humiliation and the inevitable rise of the hard right (Putin) we are now where we are. The big bang eastward expansion of the EU with its common external tariff also economically isolated Russia on its west side. It felt contained.

      Comment by Nanikore— 25 Feb, 2022 #

      • A crucial figure in the West’s economic approach to Russia’s transition actually was Jeffrey Sachs, who was actually one of the less dogmatic and more open minded neo-classical economists around, and someone actually I otherwise respect.

        Comment by Nanikore— 25 Feb, 2022 #

      • Sachs is an unapologetic apologist for the Russian and the Chinese regimes. It would be interesting to know his financial interactions with them.
        .
        “The rapid eastward expansion of the EU and NATO…”
        .
        The peoples of the eastern European states no longer desired to be the vassals of Russia. They were looking west and wanted to be part of Europe. What does that have to do with the paranoid Russian regime?
        .
        When is it that commentators will recognize the legitimate desires of sovereign peoples?
        .
        Has the West directly ever threatened/invaded Russia? – NO. (Don’t bother mentioning the military bases and the missile systems – they exist on both sides). The only invasions ever perpetrated after WWII were by Russia. The West had an opportunity to invade Russia at it weakest moment in the early 1990s. Did it take the opportunity? – NO. Russia has no need to fear the West. It is driven by its own paranoia and need for expansionism and the need of the oligarchs to protect their interests.
        .
        I used to listen to short wave radio when there were short wave broadcast stations to listen to. I remember listening to Radio Moscow sometime in the early 1990s. The programme ended and then an advertisement was made for the sale of a chemical plant and a steel plant. Imagine that. I was stunned at the ineptitude. I am sure I could have rung the number given and purchased the plants with my Visa card. That’s how desperate the situation was.
        .
        “The big bang eastward expansion of the EU with its common external tariff also economically isolated Russia on its west side.”
        .
        You make it sound as if Europe designed the tariff to specifically exclude Russia. It was not so designed. It was a general tariff.
        .
        “It felt contained.”
        .
        Russia has the largest land mass of any nation, spanning from eastern Europe to Asia. Its land mass comprises one eighth of the habitable land surface of the Earth. It has abundant and almost unlimited natural resources. It has a population of over 140M. In what sense is it possible that it should feel “contained”? It what sense should it feel the need to expand into Europe? This is megalomania on steroids.

        .

        Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

        • The intentions (including those of Sachs) might have been good. But this was the hey dey of neo-liberalism ( a political science school based on rational choice methodology that is pro market and uber globalisation – although it believes in winners compensating losers, believes ultimately, give or take a few frictions, in the price mechanism to efficiently allocate resources). Unfortunately the collapse of the Soviet Union vindicated these people in arguments about the case of the non-price based allocation of resources.

          Unfortunately there was little nuance in this debate.

          Neo-classical economics was impotent in providing a critique of this ideology, In fact it was a perfect companion to it.

          The right policy was to engage Russia in the international system through a gradualist approach. Such an approach would have eventually opened it up to NATO and EU membership. In fact one may have asked why NATO would have even still be necessary. As it looks now (with only eastward expansion) it appears understandably to many as an anti-Russian alliance.

          It would be understandable if America was concerned, for example, if Mexico or Canada joined a Chinese-Russian alliance that stationed missiles and military bases on its border. Indeed there was the Cuba missile crisis.

          To be fair, the initial policies of Bush I/Baker were good. They wanted Glasnost to succeed.The problems started in subsequent administrations.

          The big bang privatisations and immediate eastward expansions of western security structures set the stage for the rise of the hard right in Russia and a return to the Cold War.

          Basically to sum it up both geopolitically and economically big bang was a mistake. The right approach was gradualism and support for moderates.

          Russia is a mess. Its inhabitants are understandably disillusioned with capitalism. And they don’t trust the West.

          Macron has so far failed, but I believe a Merkel/Macron type of approach offers some limited hope in the long run.

          Comment by Nanikore— 25 Feb, 2022 #

        • Nanikore,
          .
          ” As it looks now (with only eastward expansion) it appears understandably to many as an anti-Russian alliance.”
          .
          ?
          .
          It was formed in 1949 to countervail the Soviet threat to Europe. So you bet, it is anti-Russian. The Soviet threat to Europe was real. It occupied East Germany. It invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia. It installed puppet regimes in various countries. It effectively incarcerated Eastern European nations against their will.
          .
          “with only eastward expansion”
          .
          Of course. That’s the direction it was established to protect. And, again, you speak as if it is self-driven. The peoples of eastern Europe have shunned Russia. They want to be part of Europe. When are you going to get this?
          .
          “Russia is a mess. Its inhabitants are understandably disillusioned with capitalism. ”
          .
          Are they? I would say they are disillusioned by a despotic regime which is in cohoots with a cabal of oligarchs. (I would call this fascism.)

          Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

          • You might, but you must also ask what made them want to vote for Putin in the first place. What they are likely to want is a functioning and secure system and a proper job and wage for a day’s work. Most are not that interested in freedom of expression. This is a very 90s neo-liberal perspective on things.

            I refer back to the window of opportunity, although of course hindsight is an easy thing. But there were people outside the mainstream (certainly the economics mainstream) who could see the dangers. There was also an opportunity to end the Cold War. That would lead to natural questions of what NATO in a post-Cold Ware era was really for. Russia also considers itself part of Europe. In the 90s there was talk of Russia eventually becoming a member of the EU, but I somewhat understand a Russian view that it was never really a serious offer, and certainly not after Bush I/Baker.

            The big bang Eastern expansion has also caused no end of problems for the EU itself, and Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the single currency in a few years might just push it and Germany to the brink, but that’s another discussion.

            I don’t pretend to understand what Putin’s doing, certainly a full scale indefinite occupation of Ukraine would seems an unfathomable objective. But people more knowledgable suspect a prime objective is the securing of a land route to Kaliningrad, the headquarters of Russia’s baltic fleet. At the moment you have to cross a few hundred or so kilometres of former Soviet now enemy (NATO) territory to get to the Russian enclave. The other important naval sites are Vladivostok and Sebastopol in Crimea (hence that invasion). Perhaps the occupation of Ukraine is to strengthen Putin’s hand in a negotiation to gain concessions, particularly the land bridge.

            That all said, I also have acquaintances in Kiev who can’t be contacted. It is worrying.

            Comment by Nanikore— 25 Feb, 2022 #

  5. What will equally live in infamy is that the West appears to be paralysed and incapable dealing with tyrants.

    Comment by Henry Rech— 24 Feb, 2022 #

    • The West is always happy to deal with compliant tyrants. It’s independently minded “tyrants” we don’t like.

      Comment by Crash Carson— 25 Feb, 2022 #

    • So we should deal reasonably with Putin who has just invaded a sovereign state and has spoken so as to give the impression he is rattling the nuclear sabre?
      .
      You have to be kidding.

      Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

      • If we had dealt reasonably with Russia we would not be where we are now. This outcome was chosen in Washington.

        Comment by Crash Carson— 25 Feb, 2022 #

      • So the West capitulates to a tyrant against the wishes of a sovereign people?

        Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

        • I have read that 70% of Ukrainians do not wish to join NATO. Nobody in Washington cares about that. It is a sad fact of life that small countries get trampled when giants fight. Do the “sovereign people” of Russia wish to join the US empire again? Does that question enter your calculus? It seems to be salient in the “tyrant’s”.

          Comment by Crash Carson— 25 Feb, 2022 #

        • CC,
          .
          “I have read that 70% of Ukrainians do not wish to join NATO.”
          .
          I have read the opposite.
          .
          “Do the “sovereign people” of Russia wish to join the US empire again? ”
          .
          Did you mean Russia or Ukraine? I presume you mean Ukraine. If you mean Ukraine, I would agree that is the critical question. It is what I keep saying. It is not what the US, NATO or Russia wants. What is paramount is the desire of the Ukrainian people.

          Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

          • Well, according to this 2021 poll a majority (59%) support joining NATO. However in the East and South 70% do not. Presumably residents of the LDNR were not asked.
            .
            I mean Russia. In an ideal world Ukrainian opinion would count (it would help if they could agree). In this world Ukraine is a pawn in the game and only what the US and Russia want counts. They can’t agree either, so a pawn is sacrificed.

            Comment by Crash Carson— 25 Feb, 2022 #

          • CC,
            .
            “However in the East and South 70% do not.”
            .
            Yes there are regional differences and this reflects Russia’s ability to carve out the east from the west but it does not justify Russia’s current actions.

            Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

          • CC,
            .
            “I mean Russia.”
            .
            Ok, that’s the reality of geopolitical power but I take you back to your comment “It’s independently minded “tyrants” we don’t like.” It seems to me you have taken a side, as I have. I have taken the side of the West but I would not have taken that side if it was clear that the Ukrainian people were content to see Russia dominate their internal affairs. I certainly don’t believe that is the case and as you point out there are regional differences which relate to ethnic differences which complicate the matter.
            .
            And I cannot see how any reasonable person would support Putin’s maniacal behaviour. Innocent people are being killed and terrorized.
            .
            And I can’t see how your question “Do the “sovereign people” of Russia wish to join the US empire again? ” is relevant, if ever it was a relevant question. When were the Russian people ever part of the US empire?

            Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

            • I see this as one round in a larger game. In the context of the round Russia’s action is deplorable. In the larger context it is defensive and it is the goals, actions and attitudes of the US that are deplorable.
              .
              Because the US goal is to rule the world. It is its actions that have precipitated the current events and its attitude will ensure many repeats.
              .
              After the USSR dissolved the US sent in “helpers” to convert Russia to Capitalism. They sat at desks in the Kremlin doling out public assets to private individuals domestic and foreign, closing “inefficient” public services, the whole Neoliberal shitshow. Economic collapse, mass unemployment, average lifespan cratered, alcoholism soared, currency crisis, the complete package.
              .
              Then the evil tyrant Putin ascended to the throne and threw the Americans out. Unforgiveable.

              Comment by Crash Carson— 26 Feb, 2022 #

              • Crash Carson,
                .
                You wrote:
                .
                “I think their alleged imperial ambitions are Western projection.”
                .
                So when China invaded, annexed and subjugated Xinjiang and Tibet, it was all western propaganda?
                .
                When China broke agreements and prematurely took control of Hong Kong, it was all western propaganda?
                .
                When Putin, some 20 years ago, said that collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, it was western propaganda?
                .
                In Putin’s speech of a few days ago, when he said that he had the names of supposed anti-Russian elements in Odessa, who would be found and punished, it was western propaganda?.

                In the same speech, when he lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”, it was western propaganda?

                Comment by Henry Rech— 27 Feb, 2022 #

            • CC,
              .
              “In the larger context it is defensive and it is the goals, actions and attitudes of the US that are deplorable.”
              .
              It sounds like you see Russia (and probably China) as a victim of US imperialism.
              .
              It seems to me that Russia and China are as intent on empire building and domination as is the US. They are all capable of doing deplorable things and of course they have.
              .
              The important thing for me is that it seems all the peoples of buffer states in eastern Europe have turned away from Russia.
              .
              “Then the evil tyrant Putin ascended to the throne and threw the Americans out.”
              .
              And took over from where the Americans left off. and then some.

              Comment by Henry Rech— 26 Feb, 2022 #

              • Everyone has been, is, or could become a victim of US imperalism. Russia and China have been and remain prime targets. Just read the US news.
                .
                I think their alleged imperial ambitions are Western projection. I see little evidence for it in their actions or expressed attitudes. Friend and influence gathering, yes.
                .
                Russia’s buffer had good historical reasons to turn away. Their problem is they can’t move. They may now be wondering if a friendly accommodation with Russia might have been a better bet than embracing NATO.
                .
                Putin jailed a few oligarchs, slapped down the rest, maybe assassinated a couple. That’s a reversal of American policy. He’s not an idealist, but at least he didn’t drone-strike their whole families.

                Comment by Crash Carson— 26 Feb, 2022 #

              • Crash Carson,
                .
                You wrote:
                .
                “I think their alleged imperial ambitions are Western projection.”
                .
                So when China invaded, annexed and subjugated Xinjiang and Tibet, it was all western propaganda?
                .
                When China broke agreements and prematurely took control of Hong Kong, it was all western propaganda?
                .
                When Putin, some 20 years ago, said that collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, it was western propaganda?
                .
                In Putin’s speech of a few days ago, when he said that he had the names of supposed anti-Russian elements in Odessa, who would be found and punished, it was western propaganda?.

                In the same speech, when he lamented the loss not of the Soviet Union, but of the “territory of the former Russian empire”, it was western propaganda?

                Comment by Henry Rech— 27 Feb, 2022 #

                • Xinjiang 18th century. Tibet 1951, though on and off previously.
                  .
                  Hong Kong, shit was being stirred by you-know-who for a long time before China had enough. I was surprised they put up with it as long as they did.
                  .
                  Yes, he actually said “one of the great …” I refer you to the results of that event I outlined earlier.
                  .
                  No, I believe he will try to catch those responsible for the massacre in Odessa and put the survivors on trial, something Ukraine seemed unwilling to do. Referring to them as “supposed anti-Russian elements” is western propaganda. They may be Nazis, but they’re our Nazis.
                  .
                  “Returning to history, I repeat that the USSR was founded in 1922 on the territory of the former Russian Empire.” Were is the lament?

                  Comment by Crash Carson— 27 Feb, 2022 #

        • CC,
          .
          “Following the Russian military intervention of 2014, annexation of Crimea and the start of the Donbass War, many Ukrainians changed their views of NATO: polls from the middle of 2014 until 2016 showed that the majority of Ukrainians supported NATO membership”
          .
          See below for fuller discussion:
          .
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations
          .
          Majority Ukrainian opinion has overturned since the Russian military incursions of 2014.

          Comment by Henry Rech— 25 Feb, 2022 #

  6. what was that all about?

    Comment by topcat— 24 Feb, 2022 #


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and Comments feeds.