You mean like electing a president with good relations to Russia who proceeded to declare an end to further NATO ambitions? Because that is what happened in 2010. — Echarmion

Dialogue can and should happen regardless of who is president. It costs nothing.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over.

Obviously, presidents or politicians who have some rapport with the Russians are useful. But once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine, it's over. — Tzeentch

If that's the world we live in, why on earth would Europe follow an independent foreign policy or seek rapprochement with Russia? It'd just be one US backed coup away from war, whereas in the US sphere of influence, Europe is fine.

Europe is not Ukraine, obviously.

And Ukraine assumed it wasn't Georgia, and look where it got them.

I think what plays a large role is that, despite all the historical evidence, Europe seems chronically incapable to view the United States as a ruthless great power which follows realist logic. — Tzeentch

This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.

I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).

And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.

The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it.

So Finland and Sweden gave up their neutral status and put themselves in the crosshairs of a future conflict to 'protect' against a power that was trying to return to stability to begin with. The power who is trying to avoid a return to stability is the one they chose to jump in bed with. — Tzeentch

I do value your opinions, Tzeentch, but this is ignorant bullshit.

Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.

You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.

And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?

It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else.

You clearly have a problem with the idea that things can return to normal after this war, even though it would likely be the best scenario for all parties involved (except the US). Why? — Tzeentch

I don't.

The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. And I don't want to hear your arguments of Ukrainians being pawns with no ideas of their own in this game.

The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple.

And likely relations are tried to be improved after Putin dies of naturally causes or is replaced. Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade.

I'm aware of the context — Tzeentch

Goodie, then you also know about the

deNazification, this, sham referenda + swift annexations, this, irredentism — Jul 22, 2024

yet keep skirting how to fit it all into your story/theory, hence the question.

Where is this imperialist Russia that wants to "Finlandize Europe"? — Tzeentch

This is just the reality Ukraine has to deal with. — Tzeentch

They told us exactly what the problem was, and they told us exactly what the consequences would be. — Tzeentch

And,

as mentioned before, what they're doing won't solve their (supposed) NATO-phobia — Jul 22, 2024

anyway.

So ... fit into your story?

once the US starts backing coups in Ukraine — Tzeentch

Ah yes, an evil covert coup by the CIA :D

Protesters opposed what they saw as widespread government corruption, abuse of power, human rights violations,⁽⁹¹⁾ and the influence of oligarchs.⁽⁹²⁾ — Euromaidan

Been over this, @Tzeentch

This shows how you really don't understand Europe. You think that US and Russia act and behave in Europe similarly, because they are Great Powers.

I assume that you come to this conclusion with thinking about how the US has treated let's say Guatemala (and how the US has acted in it's backyard). Well. in the long run the US policy towards Guatemala has been more like the United Fruit Company's policy towards the country. The US doesn't behave similarly towards France, Sweden or Finland (as Russia doesn't behave similarly towards Brazil and India as it does towards Georgia, Moldavia or Ukraine).

And the simply fact is that you simply don't seem to understand European integration and NATO at all. NATO isn't like Warsaw Pact, which primary function was seen in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. NATO isn't just a puppet for the American President, which has been shown quite many times (for example from how much Trump despises the organization this should be evident). You insist Ukraine would have been invited to NATO, because American presidents wanted so, even if it was obvious that many NATO countries opposed this. Yet NATO could never give formally an outside member. And the de facto assurances didn't matter for Russia, because it has territorial interests in Ukraine. Just like EU hasn't officially stated that Turkey cannot be never an EU member, this is de facto real. It's an international defense pact that sovereign states have willingly put their defense into, just as EU countries are committed to European integration.

The simple fact is that even if for Yemenis or Palestinians and many Latin Americans, the US seems to be a ruthless Superpower, but that isn't the case for Sweden, Finland or East European countries. Just as Russia wouldn't never dare to do any hybrid attacks towards India and try to involve itself in Indian politics. I'm sure Russia behaves quite cordially towards it's BRICS partners. It doesn't act the same way in it's "near abroad" thanks to being and seeing itself something else than a nation-state, but a great power. This is something you have to understand, but you just ignore it. — ssu

What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power.

We are no longer a key ally to the United States, since we are nowhere near the Pacific and likely to stay on the sideline if large-scale conflict were to break out there. In fact, we will profit from a war in the Pacific, directly and indirectly. That now makes us a threat and a potential rival to the US.


Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves.

Note for example, how the sanction packages and freezing and seizing of Russian assets barely scratched the Russian economy while it was done serious damage to ours, and has seriously tanked our international credibility as trading partners.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army.


We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit.

Naive countries that do not realize they have gone from friend to temporary asset are in grave danger, and will likely end up in ruin like Vietnam, Ukraine, etc.

Especially Finland has been in the crosshairs of a conflict with the Soviet Union starting from the armstice in 1944. It was in the crosshairs and continued to be in the crosshairs especially after Putin has wanted to make Russia a Superpower again. Russia did it's hybrid attacks by organizing refugee flows into Northern Finland in 2015-2016. It has GRU sleeper cells in the country ready to do sabotage and to assassinate important people as the way of it's "deterrance" in Finland, if war breaks out. It has breached consistently Finnish aerospace with military aircraft, has jammed GPS signals and kept up belligerent rhetoric all this time prior to 2022, hence Finland has all the time been in it's crosshairs. What you are saying is simply ludicrous.

You simply don't understand that there wouldn't have been any end to this if Finland would have stayed neutral, likely the hybrid attacks would have continued even more to push Finland back into a weaker spot. There would be no "normal relations", there would be only Finlandization, where the Finnish President would get his international speeches from the FSB chief in the Russian embassy. That's the fucking "normal relations" that Putin wants. That we would talk the "lithurgy" as in the Soviet times.

And wtf stability are you talking about? Russia's military has always been multiple times larger than Finland's or Sweden's? Do you think annexing territory from Georgia and Ukraine is a way of Russia attempting "stability"?

It's simply imperialist revanchism, an attempt to fix what Putin sees as the greatest tragedy of the 21st Century (collapse of the Soviet Union). Nothing else. — ssu

There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country.

But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start.

Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia.

This is not odd. Neutrality has a price, but so does joining a faction. This is simply the real world of great power politics. Believing that becoming a de facto US vassal is not going to bear a cost is similarly foolish.

The war ends when the two sides come to some conclusion, either a peace deal or a cold armstice (as with the Koreas). And it's the job of Ukraine and Russia in the end. — ssu

Ok, so what is your view of the US and UK blocking the peace deal the Ukrainians and Russians had struck in Istanbul?

The thing we've learned from history is that Russia has to be forced someway to a peace agreement: if continuing the war looks to be a better option, the Russia will continue the war. Plain and simple. — ssu

You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed.

Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states?

Remember that the war isn't hurting Europe so much, so this can go on for years, even a decade. — ssu

This war has been a disaster for Europe. The German economy is on its ass. Funny that - "keeping the Germans down" is one of the primary reasons the US is in NATO.

But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

Poll says 32% of Ukrainians open to territorial concessions for quick peace
https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/poll-says-32-of-ukrainians-open-to-territorial-concessions-for-quick-peace/

What you're describing are US-European relations during the Cold War. During this time, Europe was a key US ally against the Soviet Union.

What I am saying is that this relationship has been fundamentally changing since the end of the Cold War, and especially since China has emerged as the new threat to US power. — Tzeentch

In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.

The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.

What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program).

Since the Ukraine war, it has become increasingly clear that US and European interests divert in a way that is dangerous for Europe. The US is using European naivety in this regard to have us hamstring ourselves. — Tzeentch

I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same: the totally reckless territory annexing Russia threatening with nuclear weapons is a threat. You seem to be in your own echo-chamber.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch

That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. The assistance it has given to Ukraine has in now way been a real burden.

We are now no longer "friends," but temporary assets to the US, and the US is already preparing the ground for when Europe finally slips its orbit. — Tzeentch

Bullshit again.

NATO countries don't want the US to go. And the idea that Americans want to be just like Canadians isn't true. But that's the reality if the US wants to go out of "foreign entanglements" like NATO and Atlanticism: then the US is just a large Canada. People don't know (or care) in Europe what the Canadian government wants. But naturally everybody has quite good relations with Canada.

And why this thinking that the countries want to severe good ties? That's the thing in your anti-American hostility you forget.

There's no point in talking about the Soviet Union. Russia today has nowhere close to the power of the former Soviet Union. It's a completely different country. — Tzeentch

Again wrong. Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, while European armies have fallen in size dramatically from the Cold War era. And present day Russia is as aggressive if not more aggressive than the Soviet Union.

But Finland has been working with NATO for a long time, and has been a member of the European Union almost since the start. — Tzeentch

Assuming that the EU started at 1993 is wrongful, the treaty of Rome in 1957 would be far more correct. Naturally Finland has tried to have as much of ties with the West, earlier there was naturally the obstacle of "Finlandization".

Obviously once tensions start rising as they did post-2008, Finland is going to be in the crosshairs. That's where it put itself when it aligned to a bloc that became hostile towards Russia. — Tzeentch

You really don't get it, do you.

There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. With Russia as a neighbor there's no "normal" relations let's say Canada and Switerland can have. Just look at how great being the member of CSTO has been to Armenia. Russia didn't give a fuck when Azeris supported by Turkey annexed Nagorno-Karabakh. That's the kind of "ally" Russia is. CSTO, just like the Warsaw Pact is primary a form of control.

I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. It wouldn't. Just read what Putin wants. Ukraine was an artificial construction and the country's should be together. That's it. All those annexations show that this isn't just about NATO and Americans, it's about a lot else that you simply refuse to take into account.

You are quite selective with the lessons you learn from history, I've noticed. — Tzeentch

At least I refer to the peace agreements and the wars the Russia / Soviet Union has fought, unlike you.

Do we learn nothing from Vietnam, the Middle-East, etc. when it comes to US involvement in fragile states? — Tzeentch

Fragile states like North-Vietnam or Israel? Hmm...

Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government?

One good thing if Trump wins: he’ll probably stop funding the war that the US provoked. That’ll save many Ukrainian lives.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch

Just because no-one has challenged this false claim yet: Europe's militaries are not "stripped". Most frontline equipment that has been handed over has been old models from storage.

E.g. Germany handed over just 18 modern tanks out of a total of about 300. France has 400 modern MBTs. The UK has about 200, and handed over 14.

Obviously the European air forces, arguably the most important deterrent factor given NATO doctrine, are entirely intact.

Where Europe is "stripped" is in terms of ground based artillery (especially tube artillery) and ground based air defenses. This is a side effect of NATO doctrine and the threats western militaries have expected to face in the early 2000s. This will likely change as a result of the Ukraine war though.

One good thing if Trump wins: he’ll probably stop funding the war that the US provoked. That’ll save many Ukrainian lives. — Mikie

What you don't care about the russian lives it would safe?

What you don't care about the russian lives it would safe? — Echarmion

Then don't vote for Trump?

In Europe, especially countries like Poland, Sweden, Finland and the Baltic States see the situation as the continuation of Cold War. Hence they usually are flabbergasted when (and especially after 2022) when some idiot starts talking about the present as totally different from the Cold War.

The idea of a fundamental change is nonsense. It was the nonsense when it was eagerly talked in the 1990's, when the membership of Russia in NATO was on the table. Then it was the "New Threats" and things like conscription were "ancient relics of a bygone era". Not anymore. If you wouldn't have ex-KGB officers at helm in Russia, yes, Russia could have been totally different.

What has changed is that Germany is unified and now has a bulwark of Poland between it and Russia. For Poland the situation is far more perilous than it was in the late 1990's (and thus it's vast rearmament program). — ssu

The most relevant difference between the Soviet Union and Russia is obviously its power.

Russia has a population of 144 million, and a GDP of 2.2 trillion.

It's tiny. Germany alone doubles Russia's GDP.

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears.

This is why I keep emphasizing that Europe needs to get its head out of its ass.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. European and US interests are quite the same — ssu

War with the Russians is in European interests?

The fact that you're saying this is why I keep emphasizing you're war-hungry to the point of absurdity, and you don't even seem to notice it yourself.

That's why Europe simply needs to rearm. — ssu

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war - which is of course exactly what Uncle Sam is trying to achieve in Eastern Europe.

Conducting geopolitics is a fine line, and Europeans are treading it in the most amateurish way possible. It's a lost art in Europe, and it's going to cost us a lot of lives in the near-future.

NATO countries don't want the US to go. — ssu

As though US geopolitical strategy is going to be guided in any way by what NATO countries want, as oppossed to what necessity dictates.

Russia has a very large armed forces and a nuclear deterrent, [...] — ssu

Russia did not have a large armed force prior to the invasion. Some 200,000 troops for a country as large as Russia is not "very large" - it's tiny.

It only started to expand its armed forces when the Ukraine war was well underway, when the West boycotted diplomatic negotiations and made further diplomacy impossible - even going so far as getting Zelensky to write down in the Ukrainian constitution that diplomatic negotiations could not take place.

So Europeans complaining about Russia's armed forces are either being deliberately misleading or utterly naive about the consequences of their own actions.

Also, Europe has a nuclear deterrent as well.

There's no other option. There's no option of "Let's be friends with Russia" that would have a better outcome for Finland: Russia would just increase it's efforts to dominate Finnish policy, if it would be let to do it. — ssu

You don't think the US dominates European politics? Or Ukraine? Hello?!

I'm not going to sit here and say Russia is better than the US in this regard, but again you're showcasing the fact you have no sense of balance in this matter.

You recognize you're neighboring a crocodile, but simultaneously fail to recognize you voluntarily jumped into bed with one.

I think in your naivety you think that if only Ukraine given up on everything and done as Russia wanted, everything would be fine. — ssu

Are you aware of this knee-jerk reaction you seem to have, where every attempt at diplomacy is caricatured as "giving up on everything and doing as Russia wants"?

"Diplomacy is capitulation" I hear you saying, like you're the minister of propaganda in a George Orwell novel.

Or you really think that Ukraine or Finland, Sweden, is similar to South-Vietnam or Pro-Western Afghan government? — ssu

Sure. All are countries that jumped into bed with a crocodile to protect themselves from the crocodile across the border. Predictably, they will get eaten.

Supposedly we were going to feed Ukraine weapons to hurt the Russian military so they couldn't pull another stunt like Ukraine, yet it's the European militaries which are completely stripped and the Russians who now have an army several times the size of their peace-time standing army. — Tzeentch


Just because no-one has challenged this false claim yet: Europe's militaries are not "stripped". Most frontline equipment that has been handed over has been old models from storage. — Echarmion

Tzeench’s claims are plagued by rhetorical inconsistencies which betray his pro-Russian propaganda.

On one side he’s dismissing the European military capacity in the face of Russia’s army and on the other side he’s all about dismissing the Russian military threat as well: “Russia has a fraction of Europe's GDP and population. Russia is hardly a threat if the Europeans would just get their heads out of their asses.” (notice the hypothetical)

On one side he wants the Europeans to take their “heads out of their asses” in matter of security and military readiness and yet he’s all about dismissing “this type of fearmongering nonsense” from our side against Russia. But if Europeans wouldn't get their heads out of their ass out of fear for the Russian military threat, then what else would make them do that?

On one side he wants Europeans and Russia to strategically ally (so see themselves more as partners than enemies) because “while the US and China beat each other to a pulp, Europe and Russia would remain intact and grow in relative power. Why do you think the US is trying so hard to embroil Europe and Russia in a war with each other? It's trying to prevent either of them from becoming the laughing third. It's easy to understand why the Russians are so keen on a diplomatic settlement when you understand this context. The only people who don't seem to understand anything are the Europeans.” On the other if Russia is no threat to Europeans because it seeks an economic partnership, and China and the US are beating each other to pulp, against whose threats would European be compelled to unite and rearm?

On one side NATO is a legitimate security threat for Russia, and on the other side apparently Russia would be just fine with letting Europe be united and rearmed as a geopolitical nuclear power right at its side in name of an economic partnership.

On one side he is all about populist views “European populism threatens to slip Europe from Washington's grasp, turning it from a vassal into a potential rival.”, but on the other side European populism is against EU and pro-nationalist (and also at Putin's pocket) so arguably against political-economic-military integration which might be necessary pre-condition to talk about security threats and economic interests for Europeans COLLECTIVELY (BTW lack of unity and moral are also reasons why Europeans have been and still are so hesitant toward Russia in the current conflict).

@Tzeench do yourself a favour, take your head out of Putin’s ass, and put it back in yours.

Sorry dudes, I didn’t finish to shit over @Tzeench’s hypothetical “grand strategy” where Europeans will chum up with Russia and eat pop corns together while China and the US “beat each other to a pulp”.

Indeed, it’s funny to see this dude completely overlooking another hypothetical scenario which his guru Mearshaimer would likely support, and even Trump (his beloved American President) would arguably welcome: the scenario where the US reconciles with Russia to better contain China using Ukraine as a bargaining chip.

Now let’s consider a scenario where Russia:

- can be flattered by 2 great powers like China and the US,

- can experience a boost in its fuel and wheat exports (nurturing its power projection in all contended areas, including in Europe), even more so if Ukraine will completely surrender to Russia (something which is welcome because apparently Ukrainian lives matter to Trump voters! And it’s totally risk free and harmless for Europe because if Russia could blackmail EU for its fuel supply when Ukraine was NOT under its control, how could Russia blackmail EU for its fuel supply AND wheat supply when Ukraine is completely under its control ?)

- can enjoy free pass for expanding in North Africa and the Mediterranean (namely, ENCIRCLING EUROPE)

- can have UK+East Europeans locked in an anti-Russian stance due to their historical fear of Russian imperialism conveniently boosted by the US of course (Trump didn’t like North Stream 2, right? nor the German or European economy outperforming the American one, right?) and the rest of European countries with self-conceited anti-US/pro-Russian lackeys (replacing the pro-US lackeys’) as political oppositions or leaders

In this scenario, who doesn't give a fuck about Europeans to put their heads out of their ass more than Russia?

Not only Europe won’t get completely rid of the US but it would completely get split in smaller regional spheres of influence between the US and Russia (however not with the same antagonism as in the Cold War, at least as long as China remains the greatest security threat to both), and with no prospect of boosting their economy or army other than as a function of their hegemon’s interest (BTW I let you imagine how fantabulous is the prospect of experiencing an economic boost under far-right populist political elites when Russia is your hegemon, it’s enough to see the envious example of the ex-Soviet Union republics).
In a wonderful multipolar world, market/industry/technology inputs and outputs and commercial routes are under the political/military control of regional hegemonic powers, negotiating on trading conditions or imposing them for everybody else.

In short, in this hypothetical scenario, there is no way that Europeans simply chum up with Russia and economically profit from the conflict between China and the US, living in happiness, peace and bliss ever after.

I think a lot of it is the allure of the grand narrative, in this case the grand narrative about the "pivot to Asia".

It simplifies international relations into a zero sum power play, with nations essentially as blank slates. That can be a useful tool of course, but it ignores stuff like economic structure, history and culture.

Crucially, the idea that Russia and Europe are natural partners in a kind of "third block" only makes sense if you not only ignore the nature of the Russian state as it now exists, but also the lack of much economic synergy. Russia can replace neither the US nor China as an economic partner to Europe. All it can offer is cheap raw materials. It's neither a big market nor a big manufacturer. If China and the US go onto a direct collision course, Russia is in no position to materially soften the blow for Europe.

Nor is a security partnership plausible given the military capacities and the way the Russian elite justifies it's rule (as a bulwark against westernisation).

But these are all details. Economic reality demands that the US pivots to Asia and thus it demands Russia and Europe forming a block. If that doesn't happen it must be the result of some manipulation.

All the other contradictions just follow from the premise that the theory trumps the details. How can the following statements be reconciled?

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch

Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia.

Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion

Indeed, and there are plenty of western scholars who share that sentiment. Jeffrey Sachs, Noam Chomsky, John Mearsheimer, etc. - all Americans by the way.

Such theories come with a risk though, a kind of epistemological moral hazard. Once you've started ascribing some events to an unnatural manipulation, there's nothing stopping you from doing so every time events fail to adhere to the theory.

Sure. Let me know when that happens.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1.

Mearsheimer understood it as far back as 2015.

Are you aware of this knee-jerk reaction you seem to have, where every attempt at diplomacy is caricatured as "giving up on everything and doing as Russia wants"?

"Diplomacy is capitulation" I hear you saying, like you're the minister of propaganda in a George Orwell novel. — Tzeentch

When one side issues conditions (declarations/demands/ultimatums masquerading as proposals, which have to already be accepted) — conditions that go against international law and recognized land and borders, instead of demonstrating wanting to come to the talking table to negotiate — then there's no negotiation on the horizon, there's a "Yes" or "No" to those conditions.

At the moment we see no grounds for hope that there will be any positive changes in the foreseeable future. Russia remains open and ready to discuss the most difficult issues at the negotiating table. But not to the detriment of our own interests.
— Dmitry Peskov — Oct 25, 2022

It is completely not feasible. It is not possible to implement this. It’s not realistic and everybody understands this, but at the same time, they say this is the only basis for negotiations. — Sergey Lavrov · Sep 23, 2023

In Ukraine, those who are aggressive towards Russia, and in Europe and in the United States – do they want to negotiate? Let them. But we will do it based on our national interests. We will not give up what is ours.
— Pukin — Dec 19, 2023

A naïve attitude towards Putin's regressive Russia is, well, not particularly smart, or is a particularly kind of blindness, or whatever. Not going to repeat all evidence already posted. (Besides, you ignore requests to account for whatever observations with your theory.)

Sure. Let me know when that happens. — Tzeentch

Both Europe and Russia are demonstrably acting against the interests the theory prescribes for them. The only explanation given for this is that the US is somehow engineering all of it.

These people have been making accurate predictions about where this war would lead since Day 1. — Tzeentch

What predictions? Be specific please.

If you haven't familiarized yourself with the basic structure of these people's theories then you're running a few years behind. How about you educate yourself instead of asking me to regurgitate for you what has already been said a million times over the course of this thread?

(Besides, you ignore requests to account for whatever observations with your theory.) — jorndoe

Since you ignore requests to actually state your points clearly. :yawn:

When one side issues conditions (declarations/demands/ultimatums masquerading as proposals, which have to already be accepted) — conditions that go against international law and recognized land and borders, instead of demonstrating wanting to come to the talking table to negotiate — then there's no negotiation on the horizon, there's a "Yes" or "No" to those conditions. — jorndoe

This is normal for negotiations, actually, and it was no problem when negotiations took place in March/April 2022. When those threatened to succeed at producing peace, the West blocked it and made subsequent talks impossible. Zelensky even put it in Ukraine's constitution.

A naïve attitude towards Putin's regressive Russia is, well, not particularly smart, or is a particularly kind of blindness, or whatever. Not going to repeat all evidence already posted. — jorndoe

The only blind ones are you oompaloompas I keep wasting my time on. :lol:

And this is how it always goes with you. When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away.

In fact it's because I'm aware of their arguments (and the fact that they contain no predictions for the war we could yet test) that I'm asking you for a justification.

But no matter. The core point remains that the mere fact that there's a Ukraine war at all is a fatal flaw in the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies.

When pressed on the specifics you invoke your interlocutors ignorance and run away. — Echarmion

Cute. You can accuse me of many things, but running away isn't one of them. If there is anyone who has laid out their arguments in painstaking detail it is me.

Your problem is laziness and entitlement.

the theory that Europe and Russia are natural allies. — Echarmion

what :lol:

Russia can replace neither the US nor China as an economic partner to Europe. All it can offer is cheap raw materials. It's neither a big market nor a big manufacturer. — Echarmion

One thing I wouldn’t discount about Russia is that Russia has its military-industry complex to supply other countries and also offer security as a service (as with Wagnerites in African countries), and that means its influence over markets, commodity supplies and migration fluxes can extend well beyond Russia.

If China and the US go onto a direct collision course, Russia is in no position to materially soften the blow for Europe. — Echarmion

Tzeench may still try to claim that, in addition to their economic partnership with Russia, Europeans can still try to turn themselves into some greater supplier for the US/Chinese market (also for military supply?).

Anyways such an hypothetical future scenario seems grounded on the preposterous assumption the Europeans can coordinate their efforts in a way to maximise their benefits apparently at low/no cost/risk with the support of Russia while the rest of the World (including the US) is distracted by a war between the US and China. A “ruthless great power which follows realist logic” (not Russia of course, which is known to be a merciful great power which follows Peace&Love logic, but the US, the Great Satan) which masterminded a proxy war against Russia but now it is evidently doomed to fight China while Europe will economically exploit them and eat pop corns with Russia. How genius is that painstakingly detailed plan?!

Nor is a security partnership plausible given the military capacities and the way the Russian elite justifies it's rule (as a bulwark against westernisation). — Echarmion

Unless Russia manages to de-Westernise Europe by propping far-right authoritarian lackeys and populists which do not like super-national governance/market, civil freedoms, democratic regimes, immigration, women rights, secularism, etc. I bet Orban might be happy to rely on Russia for its security.

All the other contradictions just follow from the premise that the theory trumps the details. How can the following statements be reconciled?

In other words, there is no reason Europe should treat Russia as the big threat. The only point Russia becomes a threat is if we A. constantly play our cards wrong, and B. let mercurial powers like the US whisper into our ears. — Tzeentch


Sure. But it needs to do so without pointlessly antagonizing Russia, otherwise rearmament is going to lead to mutual tensions and militarization (which we are already in the process of), which will not achieve security, but the exact opposite: war — Tzeentch


Ordinarily we would suppose that war is a threat. But the war here is supposed to be the result of an unnatural manipulation by the US and thus not actually a threat by Russia. — Echarmion

But Tzeench ignores the theory of his guru Mearsheimer [1], so also its ambiguities (if not implicit contradictions), and limits. Russia is a security threat to European countries because it has offensive military capacity to wreck European countries, it aspires to a regional hegemony if we are lucky (under the assumption that regional hegemony concerns at most all the Eastern European countries which Western Europeans, or just Tzeench, do not give a shit about) and beyond regional hegemony if we aren’t lucky. In any case we are uncertain of either. The theory however suggests a maximalist trend for all great powers (including Russia with its imperialist ideology, very popular among political elites, one may dare to add). And notice the total irrelevance of talking about provocation within such offensive realist views because any aggressive move is justifiable in defensive terms (be the US against Russia, be Russia against Ukraine, etc.). Actually if one takes into account the geographic proximity of Russia or the US wrt Europe, Russia is a GREATER threat than the US or China.
Hence the need for Europeans to ally and re-arm to balance PRIMARILY against Russia, with or without American manipulation.

Concerning Tzeench’s painstakingly detailed pro-Russian propaganda, I would say:

- Any re-arming, military alliance, military activity, military industry which Russia can’t veto or contain or influence is a threat for Russia too. Especially if we are talking about countries geographically close to Russia. So there is no way that Russia will be just fine by letting Europe turn into a regional power with military capacity (see how Macron, the one who tried to appease Russia and bypass NATO, was re-paid by Putin) . So here is the Russian deal which Tzeench is advertising here: as long as Russia can preserve the military capacity to overwhelm Europe and impose its will around European countries (or just the ones Tzeench’s sponsors), then Russia is not a threat to them. This argument sounds as smart as saying: the weaker you appear to your potential enemy the less likely your potential enemy is a threat to you.

- If the US can manipulate weaker states, so can Russia. That’s perfectly in line with Mearsheimer’s theory. And Mearsheimer’s theory offers enough reasons to claim that Russia is a threat to Europe, INDEPENDENTLY FROM THE US and its alleged manipulation or ear whispering. In other words, as far as propaganda is concerned, it's the offensive realist logic that explains the propaganda of "provocation" and "Great Satan" not the other way around.


[1]
The theory of his guru is called OFFENSIVE REALISM and these are the major tenets:

1. Great powers are the main actors in world politics and the international system is anarchical
2. All states possess some offensive military capability
3. States can never be certain of the intentions of other states
4. States have survival as their primary goal
5. States are rational actors, capable of coming up with sound strategies that maximize their prospects for survival



Mainly, it diverges from defensive neorealism in regards to the accumulation of power a state needs to possess to ensure its security and the issuing of strategy states pursue to meet this satisfactory level of security. Ultimately, Mearsheimer's offensive neorealism draws a much more pessimistic picture of international politics characterised by dangerous inter-state security competition likely leading to conflict and war

As Mearsheimer puts it: "they look for opportunities to alter the balance of power by acquiring additional increments of power at the expense of potential rivals",[24] since "the greater the military advantage one state has over other states, the more secure it is".[25] States seek to increase their military strength to the detriment of other states within the system with hegemony—being the only great power in the state system—as their ultimate goal.[26]

John Mearsheimer summed up this view as follows: "great powers recognize that the best way to ensure their security is to achieve hegemony now, thus eliminating any possibility of a challenge by another great power. Only a misguided state would pass up an opportunity to be the hegemon in the system because it thought it already had sufficient power to survive.[27]" Accordingly, offensive neorealists such as Mearsheimer believe that a state's best strategy to increase its relative power to the point of achieving hegemony is to rely on offensive tactics. Provided that it is rational for them to act aggressively, great powers will likely pursue expansionist policies, which will bring them closer to hegemony.[28][29]
Since global hegemony is nearly impossible to attain due to the constraints of power projection across oceans and retaliation forces, the best end game status states can hope to reach is that of a regional hegemon dominating its own geographical area.[28][29] This relentless quest for power inherently generates a state of "constant security competition, with the possibility of war always in the background".[30] Only once regional hegemony is attained do great powers become status quo states.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism