You really think it's "distance" and not "skin colour" determining the wildly different reactions to war, — boethius

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"?

Is that why you care about the Ukrainians ? Because they are "white"? — Olivier5

I care about the Ukrainians because they are people, as well the Yemens and Afghanis and Ethiopians, Uzbeks, Chinese etc.

I also care about the whole world and avoiding nuclear armageddon.

I don't say Ukrainians are more worthy victims than the Afghanis, and I went ahead and posted a news report of babies starving to death in Afghanistan.

It just so happens that Ukrainians are the victims of geopolitical circumstance and great power competition (regardless of which great power you "blame most"), which could actually be resolved by diplomacy based on a realistic understanding of the geopolitical situation.

Since this topic interests me and I've followed it, I have something to contribute.

Again, I have limited time. But my standards don't change.

I also did commit serious time based on the same standards vis-a-vis the Afghan war during times when I had something to contribute to hopefully avoiding disaster (all the way back in 2006), much more effort than I have expended here and placing myself at risk of court martial in trying to represent the Afghani interests in the chain of command.

There are a lot of problems, I have limited time to contribute and must decide based on circumstances and my own capacities.

By happenstance, I even happened to be involved in business in Ethiopia when the war was brewing and did try to help avoid it in whatever small ways I was able to. But I was told again and again that the Tigray forces couldn't possibly win and there was no need for diplomacy and the war was in the North and would never affect the NGO's in the south I had some business with. So, within my tiny amount of power I did try to motivate people that had (certainly more than me) influence in Ethiopia to not dismiss the disruption and potential damages of a war (which they did offhand and no hesitation before, and then even the initial phases of the war; even though it seemed obvious to me the situation was more serious). So, I do what can when I can.

I am as disturbed by war and saddened by the victims of war (or about to be victims of war) wherever they are and I act on that concern whenever I can.

I am not sure what law is broken when countries sign trade deals with the EU, or what harm is done to anyone. To the extent that the EU tries and contribute to stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation, it is doing good work.

Whose skin would be peeled off whose nose if Ukraine joined the EU, pray tell? Antiquity historians? — Olivier5

I'm not sure what "Antiquity historians" has got to do with this, unless you are referring to those in the EU junta whose noses would fall off if Russia, the Mid East, and Africa didn't join their empire-building project. :smile:

Plus, the EU project isn't quite as simple as "stabilizing and repairing the world around it through trade and cooperation".

1. The Roman Empire was a predatory entity whose main purpose was to serve the interests of Rome. Rome enslaved and destroyed many nations along with their language and culture, and left millions dead in its wars of conquest. So, I for one wouldn't look at Rome as a model for 21st century international relations.

2. Trade and cooperation can be, and often is, used to make economically weaker countries dependent on stronger ones.

3. Countries can perfectly well cooperate with one another without joining a superstate controlled by big bankers, industrialists, and their political stooges.

4. EU membership hasn't benefited all member states equally. The main beneficiaries have been larger countries like England (until 2020), Germany, and France that already had strong economies. Weaker economies like Spain, Italy, Greece, have benefited less and have much higher unemployment rates, for example.

5. There is growing resistance to EU domination of member states' national policies. England has already left for that very reason, and there is strong opposition in other countries, including France. So, we shouldn't pretend that there are no problems with the EU.

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime.

At the end of the day, if the EU has a "right" to build an empire for itself at the expense of others, so have Russia, Germany, Greece, etc. But it looks like the skin on some people's nose would peel off if the Germans decided to rebuild their empire .... :wink:

Moreover, from a broader perspective, the real dominant power is not the EU but America who, as we have seen, controls most of the world's finances, economies, and media. EU and NATO are products of Atlanticism (a.k.a. Transatlanticism) a US project that obviously serves US interests.

As with the EU, there is no logical reason why America should be allowed to push its interests and build a worldwide economic, financial, and military empire for itself, at the expense of other countries.

IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population ....

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime. — Apollodorus

Although the Third Reich called itself that for exactly this reason, and I would definitely agree there's plenty imperialist agendas within the EU, where does the EU self declare its aim as rebuilding the Roman Empire?

However, I do agree that if you're in favour of American Empire there's little moral grounds to condemn people making competing Empires. Actions by empires could still be condemnable and some Empires "better" than others, but Empire building as such is either just for all or just for none.

Anyway, my point was that the EU's self-declared aim of rebuilding the Roman Empire tends to be seen as commendable but Russia's alleged intention to "rebuild the Russian Empire" is indicted as some kind of crime. — Apollodorus

Maybe because one is bombing folks, and the other isn't. This may come as a shock but people don't usually appreciate being bombarded, not as much as being traded with.

It just so happens that Ukrainians are the victims of geopolitical circumstance and great power competition (regardless of which great power you "blame most"), which could actually be resolved by diplomacy based on a realistic understanding of the geopolitical situation. — boethius

Absolutely correct. If the EU and NATO hadn't insisted on unlimited expansion, Russia wouldn't have needed to take back Crimea and occupy Russian-speaking areas in Ukraine.

If Ukraine had any sense it would simply accept Russia's requests and put an end to the conflict. Unfortunately, it can't do that if it gets pushed by America and England to antagonize Russia ....

I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white... :-)

I never said Ukrainians shouldn't be asked, did I? But when it comes to something that affects Russia, or any other country, then I think it is proper to ask the people of that country as well.

I don't see why Ukraine should matter more than Russia who has a much larger population. — Apollodorus

Bombing affects Ukrainians.
Ukraine won't be joining NATO (main demand met, and has been for some time now).


By the way, I hear that some of the 4 million refugees are returning to Ukraine.

Everyone there wants to come home. — Oksana

I don't understand what your opposition to that is. — ssu

You're complaining that discussion of the US involvement in Yemen, or Ethiopia is off topic because the thread is about Ukraine. It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant.

Also relevant is the response of people to the Ukrainian crisis, the analysis of which involves a comparison to that of other crises.

What's not relevant (to a discussion forum) are endless posts simply pointing out how bad things are, or that stuff has happened. The former is a matter for your therapist, the latter for a news service.

The point is that you can use common sense. It's not all that blurry and utterly confusing that you cannot make sense of it. — ssu

I'm just baffled that you don't get this. Do you really not understand the difference between something seeming to you to be the case and something actually being the case?

It doesn't seem all that blurry to you. It seems to make sense to you.

Other people obviously disagree otherwise there wouldn't be any dispute.

If you want to make the argument that "X is the case". "It seems obvious that X is the case" is not evidence in favour of your argument, it's just a restatement of it.

If you want to show that some photo proves "X is the case", you need to provide more than just "this photo seems to me to show that X is the case", we know that. That's presumably why you presented it. What we don't know is why.

where does the EU self declare its aim as rebuilding the Roman Empire? — boethius

When (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the precursor to the EU, he said:

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms.

In 2020, Carl Baudenbacher, former president of the European Free Trade Area (EFTA), openly admitted that the EU is trying to rebuild the Roman Empire:

Under Trajan the Roman Empire, at its greatest extent, encompassed the entire Mediterranean region, but also parts of present-day Germany, Britain, Romania, Turkey, Syria and Armenia. The European Union is preparing to build a similar empire.

The choice Britain faces if it wants an EU trade deal: either EFTA, or the Ukraine model – LSE Blogtest

Obviously, they aren't going to put that in official documents, but the idea is being discussed unofficially, and has been from inception.

Even without mentioning it, it is clear that the EU project aims to include not only Europe but also the Mid East, North Africa, and all the way to Turkey, Armenia, and beyond. In other words, an enlarged Roman Empire.

It's not off topic because the US are heavily involved in Ukraine, so their reputation is very relevant. — Isaac

Apparently, it is "off topic" because @ssu says so ... :grin:

By the way, I hear that some of the 4 million refugees are returning to Ukraine. — jorndoe

Well, good on them. IMO they shouldn't have left in the first place and that Zelensky comedian should've listened to more pragmatic and experienced people instead of blindly listening to his US-UK advisers.

Obviously, he didn't know what he was doing as he and his media crew had zero knowledge of politics and even less of international relations. Don't forget that his approval ratings were down to about 30% just before the invasion. And that was because he had proved to be totally incompetent ....

I’m equally outraged about the war crimes and starvation in Yemen. The horrors in Somalia, Sudan and now in Ethiopia. I was up in arms about the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent destruction of Syria. The fate of the Kurds is shocking. The list goes on.

I’m well aware of the problems caused by US foreign policy over the last 70yrs. Also how shamelessly the U.K. jumps when the US says jump.

The big story for me about the Ukraine invasion is how it is galvanising the EU and the awakening of Germany to the need to secure its own security. And that we might now have a new iron curtain constructed on the perimeter of Europe.

When (“Mr. Europe”) Paul-Henri Spaak signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957, the precursor to the EU, he said: — Apollodorus

Well, put this way, definitely sounds a lot like the Fourth Reich to me too.

Obviously, they aren't going to put that in official documents, but the idea is being discussed unofficially, and has been from inception.

"We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms." — Apollodorus

Hopefully such intentions and plans could be modified by democratic process and these are, in the end, opinions of a small amount of individuals that could be thwarted others.

I think you only care for the Ukrainians because they are white. — Olivier5

You seem to think these observations are levied at individuals and just opinion of internal belief.

That's not the claim.

The claim about Ukrainians being white is to do with the establishment media and response of Western Governments, concrete evidence and actions and not just presumed state of mind.

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death. Obviously that warrants attention and public discussion, and there is some, but a small and tiny fraction of the effort spent on Ukraine ... and basically no government action at all. It is obvious there is a double standard and it is obvious that skin colour has something to do with it. You can live in denial or then assume "everyone is racist" and mentioning obviously racist policies just has some ulterior motive if you want.

China does the same. When accused of taking the Russian side because it was sharing Russian disinformation (according to an EU agency), the Chinese responded as follows:

"In the past decades, who has been spreading disinformation to wage war in violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of other countries? Who has been expanding its geographical scope and range of operations that have disrupted regional stability? Who has provoked conflicts that have caused large humanitarian disasters?" the spokesperson asked. — Benkei

Benkei! You know too well how China deals with destabilizing forces. They re-educate. They do exactly the same things they did during the their revolution, where they take scientists and make them work as janitors.

I'm sure the middle east would be more stable after the Chinese got through with it, but it's because they only have a flimsy idea of human rights.

I'm not saying the US is some sort of Good Guy. Yes, what it did to Central America was abysmal. They destroyed any leftist aspirations there and replaced it with an elite that gave way to organized crime. Then when societies imploded and their children showed up on the US border, Americans were confused about why Central Americans can't organize their affairs better.

But the US is a minor figure in world history. A footnote. It's not the worst thing that ever happened. What some historians will note is that the US carried forward the imprint of the British. They are not a footnote. They'll get a whole chapter.

There are a lot of analysts and commentators who conclude that Putin is a dictator. Certainly the failings of the military is not evidence to the contrary.

We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms. — boethius

Sure, why use force of arms when it's much easier to use economic, financial, and legislative means?

But, however implemented, the concept remains the same, i.e., one power dominating others for its own purposes.

And, as I said already, Germany rebuilding its empire, or even the Western Roman Empire to which it is arguably the legitimate heir, is out of the question because it would offend @Olivier5, Macron, and many others whose noses, God forbid, might start peeling or even falling off altogether .... :wink:

Sure, why use force of arms when it's much easier to use economic, financial, and legislative means? — Apollodorus

This was a miss formatting of your quote of the person saying "We will rebuild the Roman Empire and this time through the power of ideas, not by force of arms," and not my repeating on behalf of myself (I've corrected the formatting in the original comment).

However, I totally agree that such a plan is possible, and the US Empire is largely based on economic, financial and legal means of domination and far less on direct military conquest.

And indeed, direct military intervention nowadays is not even used to conquer and extract resources and tribute as in Empires past, but simply to topple anyone who steps out of line into a disastrous civil war and, if things go well, a failed state.

And I would agree that some people involved in the European project have a similar ambition for Europe, but I would not say the European project reduces to that and has no (at least for the moment) democratic recourse to shape policy.

Additionally, at the moment anyways, the EU is still a voluntary based organisation (which Brexit does prove), and consensus driven on at least some critical issues. So, it is far closer to a diplomatic project than an Empire, at least for now and even if some people involved have Imperial ambitions.

Getting back to geopolitics, my general view is that the world can, for the time being, only hope to share great power politics and competition to be less, rather than more, harmful. For example avoiding nuclear war in the cold war wold be a geopolitical "success" from this realist point (it can always be worse, even if the great power system is pretty "bad" in itself).

So, if that's the case, shaping better rather than worse great power policies is a fruitful task in parallel to trying to undermine Imperialism as such and to also build alternative economic and political systems that could one day displace great power competition.

For example, however much I criticise the Americans and point out the damages they cause around the world (that includes pursuing omnicidal climate chaos ambitions, so pretty bad and heinous) that USA and the Soviet Union beat Germany and Japan, I nevertheless view as a geopolitical "good outcome". That being said, doesn't mean USA being better than the Nazi's 70 years ago makes them "better" in some sense today, but the example is to highlight the outcomes of great power competition does matter.

Today, of the great powers, EU is the most peaceful and democratic, and I rather see the expansion of such a system than the Chinese total totalitarian system. Of course, I'd rather see neither but true participatory direct democracy everywhere, but, until the "ground up" approach manages to compete with the great state powers, it does still matter what the great states do and some are more and less oppressive.

These things can be quantified in how much reporting there is and what policies and actions are taken about different conflicts.

We abandon Afghani "allies" and then let them starve to death. — boethius

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency.

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia?

There are a lot of analysts and commentators who conclude that Putin is a dictator. Certainly the failings of the military is not evidence to the contrary. — Punshhh

I'm sure there are, but many analysts and commentators have their own agendas and biases. Plus, Russia has never had any other kind of leader, so though Putin may be described as a "dictator" in a West European context (depending on the definition), he is pretty standard in a Russian context. Don't forget that Russia has a parliament and people are allowed to vote, and Putin and his party still have the backing of many Russians.

As for military failings, IMO if a leader invests billions in his country's armed forces, and his kleptocratic subordinates use the money to buy themselves superyachts and villas, then clearly he can't have "absolute control".

But I agree with you that the fate of the Kurds and others is shocking and totally unacceptable. And it's happening with NATO's approval.

When Turkey invaded Kurdish territory in Syria in 2019, NATO secretary general Stoltenberg said:

Minister Cavusoglu and I also discussed Turkey´s ongoing operation in Northern Syria … Turkey has legitimate security concerns … Turkey is a great power in this great region and with great power comes great responsibility… - NATO Joint press conference, 11 Oct. 2019

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_169576.htm?selectedLocale=en

So, according to NATO's jihadi narrative, it’s OK for Turkey to invade and occupy Kurdish lands, but not for Russia to invade Ukraine, or even to take back Crimea which has always been Russian ....

I'm not sure what "Antiquity historians" has got to do with this, [...]

1. The Roman Empire was a predatory entity — Apollodorus

"Antiquity historians" had to do with folks who keep talking of the Roman empire again and again.

IMO the interests of true freedom and democracy would be served much better by a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents instead of a worldwide American empire. This seems to be the view of non-Western powers like Russia, China, India, and many African and Latin American countries, i.e., the majority of the world population ....
1h — Apollodorus

Add me and most pro EU folks to that list. A strong EU provides an alternative to a unipolar world.

For your info, the right term for someone from Afghanistan is "Afghan". "Afghanis" are their currency. — Olivier5

Thanks.

We can also quantify how many words YOU wrote on TPF about the war in Ukraine vs that in Ethiopia or the famine in Afghanistan. If CNN is racist because they cover Ukraine more than Ethiopia, what does that make of YOU, who also cover Ukraine far more than Ethiopia? — Olivier5

This forum is one of many avenues of action available, and my time is limited in any event.

And again, the claims about racism aren't claims of internal state of mind or individuals time use, but rather about institutions that do have time and resources and simply objectively implement a skin colour based double standard.

There are many victims of many unjust things. Individually, people, if they care at all, can only do so much and are quickly path dependent on the causes they are already engaged in and know something about. So, sure, call someone bad faith for not having infinite time for every just cause that exists.

However, media and political institutions are far more powerful and have far more resources (including rational resources to decide on resource allocation) and ability to manipulate people's perspective of the world. More importantly, such institutions are political accountable, one way or another, for what they do whereas individuals are not really accountable for failing to address every single problem in the world with time that doesn't exist.

China is a fucking hellhole, which is why I try not to spend any of my money there. I guess my point is really that we're complaining about something that we think is "horrible" but we've done everything to normalise that in the past 60 odd years (and actually way before that). That's the West in its entirety not just the US of A. So aside from the complicity in this specific war due to the proxy war that was going on well before that, we're complicit in undermining the rule-based order we thought we could finally agree on, which means nobody but the West feels the need to condemn Russia.

I think that's telling and says something about how much of that condemnation is a narrative that is not universally shared.

And while as a human rights lawyer I do strongly believe in a rule-based international order, I'm afraid it's too much of a "western" construct to survive long term.

Ah, the race card!

I think I would accept more the distance card here. This is an event happening in the neighboring country to me and for both for me and Christopher the events have dramatically change the security environment in our countries. This crisis does affect my life directly even if the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia. Your and my country are sending arms to Ukraine, not to Ethiopia. (I remember that Finland did sell few training aircraft to Eritrea earlier)

The war in Ethiopia? — ssu

They know how to find their way to Europe just fine. Where was takecarebnb for them? It is racism. But not surprising the majority is blind to it when our legacy is genocide and slavery which reverberates into today's world both in how we "look at the other", define ourselves as righteous and breach the rules we claim others should adhere to. I mean the US entered into 500 treaties with indigenuous native americans and broke them all and when Russia says "pay in rubles" it's "that's a breach of treaty!".

The US breaks the UN Charter when it suits them. They break their own laws when it suits them. This trust in "Western governments" as some force of good is just complete bullshit. All governments are shit and some are just less shit than others. Democracy and fairness are a constant struggle, requires an engaged populace and access to information. The latter is quickly deteriorating in the West and engagement with people who think differently is pretty much down the drain.

So honestly I really can't bring myself to the level of condemnation the pro-NATO crowd levies at the Russians when it's really nothing different from what our own governments would do in exactly the same circumstance. Reap what you sow.

Speaking of breaking treaties. Guess who is militarising space due to changes in policies? You get two tries!

Today, of the great powers, EU is the most peaceful and democratic, and I rather see the expansion of such a system than the Chinese total totalitarian system. — boethius

I agree that the EU system is preferable to that of China, but I think "peaceful and democratic" is relative.
Certainly, in demographic, cultural, and other respects, the EU is far from all positive.

Some may argue that many EU countries have a falling population coupled with rising numbers of non-European migrants, English is replacing other languages, US-manufactured guns-and-drugs "culture" is replacing traditional European culture, etc., etc.

Plus, the EU and its agenda are becoming more and more identical with NATO, a military organization (the world's largest, actually) that is known to have engaged in aggressive behavior.

So, I for one still think that a multipolar world order based on free and independent countries and continents would be the ideal to aim for.

Also, as a consideration, blockades used to be an act of war but that was in the time when there wasn't really something like foreign direct investment, which meant the trade balance was incredibly important. Now amending the system in such a way that capital flows are no longer possible, does it give rise to blockade?

Note that this has been previously argued in other cases, like the US blockade of Cuba.

I agree that the EU system is preferable to that of China, but I think "peaceful and democratic" is relative.
Certainly, in demographic, cultural, and other respects, the EU is far from all positive. — Apollodorus

Why I say "the most" peaceful and democratic, of the great powers. A choice between limited options.

Plus, the EU and its agenda are becoming more and more identical with NATO, a military organization (the world's largest, actually) that is known to have engaged in aggressive behavior. — Apollodorus

I agree that the EU did not take advantage of a world leadership vacuum (in the sense of great power competition) created by Trump, but just lazed about waiting for neo-con and neo-liberal policy to "return".

I mean only to argue the EU has potential to play a more peaceful and democratic global roll than China, Russia and United States.

However, it so far seems to express no interest in that and seems completely content to be subservient to US foreign policy, with rare exceptions, even suffering great harms to itself in promotion of the harms US imposes on others (join and cheer on disastrous US lead wars that lead to terrorism, economic and refugee problems in Europe and not the US ... indeed, seem the only purpose is to keep Europe unstable, weaker, and focused on internal problems that wouldn't otherwise exist without neighbour's being bombed to shit).

So, I wouldn't say I'm happy about EU and the European small powers policy, and I agree the moment seems to be passing anyways, but what I don't see is another great power politics player that's a better bet.

A strong EU provides an alternative to a unipolar world. — Olivier5

Not if the EU is dominated economically, financially, politically, and militarily by America. Don't forget that the EU doesn't even have its own armed forces and is totally dependent on America.

it so far seems to express no interest in that and seems completely content to be subservient to US foreign policy, with rare exceptions, even suffering great harms to itself in promotion of the harms US imposes on others — boethius

The EU could have been a good idea if had been based (a) on equality between its members and (b) on independence from the US.

Unfortunately, after WW2, and to some extent after WW1 and even before, everyone ganged up on Germany, which had been Europe's natural dominant power, geographically, economically, and militarily.

The elimination of Germany as a European power created a vacuum that was filled by America in the west of the continent and by Russia in the east.

The logical thing to do now would be to restore Germany as a military and political power that would keep Russia in its place and America out of Europe. This seems to be the only way to make Europe a real power to balance US hegemony and make the whole world order more equitable and more democratic.