It seems you weren’t following this argument either. So, let’s recapitulate, Ukrainians are fighting a patriotic war against the Russian invasion, you claimed that “defending one's nation’ alone is insufficient as a moral reason” because “the rich oppress the poor far more consistently than one nation oppresses another.” In other words, the insufficiency claim just implies that one has more reason to fight against a greater oppressor, but it doesn’t deny that one has a moral reason to fight against a lesser oppressor (as much as having an insufficient amount of food doesn’t imply having no food). That was unexpected though because you claimed elsewhere that fighting over a flag is no doubt always immoral, so no moral reason at all ever.
To make sure you really meant what I understood about your moral reason insufficiency claim, I observed: “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” In my observation I used “fight Y” (e.g. fighting the Russian invasion) to refer to your “defending one's nation” for the obvious reason that this was what we were talking about and I too intend the Ukrainian war primarily as a patriotic resistance by the Ukrainians against the Russian invasion. That’s why there was no need to explicitly mention “defending one's nation” in (2). Then you answered: “Yes. Which would probably be why I didn't make such a claim.” So by saying “yes” you were agreeing to all of this statement “You could claim that one is morally more justified in fighting X over Y, because X is more oppressive, but that doesn’t equate to claiming that one has no moral reason to fight Y.” And since you agreed with this statement it followed that you didn’t make the opposite claim.
So even if it were true that your response “it's denying a claim I didn't make, not making a claim itself”, yet you agreed to my claim by saying “yes” and by using my claim to justify why you didn’t make a certain other claim. My objections to your position follow from what you agreed to in the context of that exchange, namely that “defending one's nation” is a moral reason however insufficient. — neomac

What a delightful construction. No doubt in your simple world it's the only possible interpretation of what has been an extremely long and complex exchange in a medium doubly flawed from the start (language and brevity). I can definitely see the attraction of erasing the distinction between the way the world seems to you and the way the world actually is.

We are past that. De facto circumstances in this case include also a conflict between American and Russian expansionism. — neomac

I'm at a loss as to why you're extracting weird rules from what was quite a simple moral statement, but in our continued exhaustive efforts to rule out every other possible interpretation prior to accepting the obvious one, I'll add that no, I do not mean that one must always be constrained by all the de facto circumstances either. I don't know how I can make this more clear. There are some de facto circumstances in the specific case of the war in Ukraine which have a moral relevance when considering a deal.

I do not mean that all de facto circumstances are morally relevant, nor do I mean that in all circumstances all people are morally constrained by all de facto circumstances.

if you want to use a multi-causal explanation to support related claims you should go through the kind of analysis I suggested. — neomac

No. You offered absolutely no compelling reason why I need to do some kind of proportional calculation before talking about multiple causes. The suggestion was just absurd and remains so.

Then, are your moral claims arbitrary too for you didn’t give any reason for your choice of method to determine your moral claims, as far as I remember? — neomac

Yes. My moral claims are arbitrary. My preferences arbitrary.

> Who said anything about helping Russia win?

I am, based on what you support in a negotiation between Russia and Ukraine, and other claims of yours such as “Seeing this crisis as an inevitable result of capitalist imperialism lend support to the fight against capitalist imperialism, which is a good thing.” — neomac

So because I think the Russian terms would make a good diplomatic end to the killing and I don't like capitalism I want Russia to win? I mean, it's hard to take you seriously with that kind of shit going on.

The question is always the same would you support a patriotic fight or would you support surrender to the American imperialistic capitalism? Yes or no? — neomac

The answer is the same. I'm neither an expert in these matters, nor someone whose opinion you respect so there's no reasonable circumstances in which you're asking such a question because you actually want to know the answer. You're asking it because you want the answer to form part of your counter argument. I know this, you know this. So the exercise is pointless because I'm only going to try and answer it in such a way as to head off your potential use of my answer in said counter-argument, and you already know that I'll do that in advance of asking the question.

I have no interest in talking about Luc Montagnier in a thread about the war in Ukraine. — neomac

You brought him up.

Your questions show a poor understanding of what I’ve already said. Besides you could ask the last ones to yourself since you talked about “an overwhelming quantity of foreign policy and strategic experts” to make a point. I could elaborate my ideas further, yet the subject of this thread is the war in Ukraine not whatever unsolicited intellectual failure of yours I happen to witness. So let’s stay focused on the war in Ukraine. — neomac

So "no idea" then?

From this unnecessary yet plausibly motivated contrast, I had the strong impression you were implicitly supporting a regime change too. And that’s it. — neomac

The power of a good story...

> The plausibility was never in question. The truth was.

Then your objections were pointless. — neomac

My objections were entirely against the claim of implausibility, so entirely pointed.

And yet you claimed: “All we can ever do on a site like this is enquire about people's reasons for holding the views they hold. The entire enterprise if pointless otherwise. If you're going to answer ‘because of some reasons’, then we might as well give up here. I’m asking about what those reasons are, I assumed you had some.”
In other words, I’m in the right place for questioning your claims, as you yourself acknowledged. So suck it up and move on. — neomac

One's reasons for holding some belief and the factual accuracy of those claims are not the same thing. I believe very strongly that the earth rotates around the sun, but I have absolutely no data at all on the factual accuracy of that claim. I believe it because it appears to be uncontested by those who are qualified and have looked at the data. I trust them. My reason for believing the earth rotates around the sun is that it is the view of all modern cosmologists and in that field, I tend to just believe whatever they say. You are attempting to do the equivalent of analysing my beliefs on the basis of some actual measurements you made of the earth's orbit. I'm not in the least bit interested in that kind of analysis because neither you nor I are sufficiently qualified to judge. If you said "why do you believe those cosmologists, they've all got a vested interest in heliocentricism..." then we'd be discussing my reasons for believing the earth rotates around the sun.

On a given topic, if one makes a claim, it’s on him to argue for it, if challenged (and also the challenge should be argued). That’s the game I’m playing in a philosophy forum. — neomac

Nonsense. What constitutes a 'claim', an 'argument', a 'challenge'... ?You set all these terms and their parameters to suit a narrative that you're playing out by your interaction here. It's just a role in a social game - you act out the script of the 'oh so rational analyst' because it's the badge you have to wear to fit the part in the story you have for yourself. The thousands of words, each with five or six different possible interpretations, the hundreds of sentences per post, each one possible to take in ten different ways, the dozens of choices about my intentions, my meanings, my objectives... You don't seriously think you make all those decisions on the basis of some cold mathematical algorithm do you? You interpret each one, each tiny possible misunderstanding each fork in the probability tree of possible meanings is weighted in favour of the preferred narrative, and each is so open to interpretation that within less a dozen such choices (of which there are thousands) virtually everything I've said can be moulded to fit virtually any narrative you care to come up with.

That's the game you're playing. We all are.

If it does, I do hope nuclear winter and global warming cancel each other out. — Benkei

:lol:

If you are in Russia, you can no longer watch this classic Soviet cartoon on Youtube (although Youtube hasn't been banned yet):



Kids explore the seas in a submersible named "Neptune" (sporting yellow and blue colors!) in search of sunken treasure. Instead they find a sunken Nazi warship with a letter Z inscribed on its side.

Basically Russian history tells us how we got here. — ssu

Come, ssu, get with the program. Who cares about Russian history? History matters only when it revolves around the US. Everything revolves around the US. America is so powerful that it dwarfs all other causal factors, in all matters, everywhere.

Enough about Russia and Ukraine already. This thread, like every thread having to do with politics and current events, is about America.

It is absolutely legitimate to heap focus on the most destructive and powerful imperial agent on the face of the Earth, especially as a bulwark against those who continue to swallow Western propaganda wholesale while spouting off racist narratives as a matter of casual conversation. — StreetlightX

Yet Russia's actions aren't Western propaganda, to put it simply.

Why do you think Finland and Sweden are now shedding it's foreign policy stance that one country since the Napoleonic Wars and the other for nearly all it's independence?

Russia has woken up, realizing everything is slip-sliding away from them unless they put a buffer stop of Ukraine and Crimea. Even so, there is no guarantee the West will destroy the rest. — FreeEmotion

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad?

Another criterion may be whether the alliance is defensive or offensive, most of times. This is based on the idea legitimate self-defense against illegitimate aggression. — Olivier5

I believe in defensive alliances, not offensive. And alliances that really put emphasis on that between members, if they have differences, the military option is out of the question. This ought to be self evident, but that it isn't, you have the perfect example of the Gulf Co-operation Council. The GCC acted promptly when one of it's member was attacked (by then Iraq). Unfortunately in an area that desperately needs sound and peaceful policies, later the relations became so bad among the member states that one was nearly attacked militarily by others.

Which just tells something about how wars can happen when you have individual monarchs ruling their countries without no restraints.

I don't think it's that simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare. They were used before MAD, before hydrogen bombs and multimegaton yields, and before ICBMs allowed for global delivery of the weapons on a hair trigger. Their use in 1945 couldn't cause an apocalypse.

Their use was in the context of air wars that were killing significantly more civilians than the primitive nuclear devices did. They were, on the one hand, a game changer as new uses for them rapidly developed, and on the other, less deadly than other single US air raids carried out in Japan and Germany with conventional bombs. They also came in the context of the Axis and Allies having used indiscriminate air raids on each other for almost 6 years in Europe, and over a decade in Asia.

Maybe more importantly, they existed outside the context of a proscription against first use that has since been adopted by every nuclear power for most of a century now.

It's a violation of norms other powers don't want. China has no incentive in seeing Russia normalize the use of nuclear weapons. It could spark development by their neighbors, which would ruin its strategic position. It sees itself gaining ground conventionally in the Pacific Rim. Nuclear armed neighbors fighting in a world where using nukes doesn't make you a exile state would ruin all their long term ambitions vis-á-vis the balance of power. India also doesn't want nuclear use normalized for Pakistan, who is has a conventional advantage against.

The problem for would be allies of Russia if they use nukes is that they will create an incentive for nukes to be used on them. Right now official doctrine and agreements say that first users get exiled from the international community, and there is strong incentives to live up to that, at least initially.

Not to mention that it would be a sea change in Russian standing in the world and an excuse to push historic claims on Russian land (which Japan and China have). Both like to remind Russia every now and again that they are illegally occupying their land, and China has actually done something about it with a labor policy that has made the areas of the Russian Far East majority Han, and the entire Federal District around 12.5-15% Han since 2000, when almost no Chinese citizens lived there.

Just what is slipping up from them? — ssu

Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this.

The only way there is probably us the US and Russia negotiate a non-intervention treaty — Benkei

That's a nice thought but I think it will have NATO laughing all the way to the bank. I think it is time Putin made a sarcastic statement that he was ready to discuss the terms of Russia's subjugation to the West and its final dissolution to a sort of a Russian speaking Iceland.

Just what is slipping up from them? The opportunity to take back Ukraine? At least they surely try to get even more of it.

So Russian imperialism is OK while Western imperialism is bad? — ssu

Imperialism is bad, fighting against it is good, but costly, might as well give in. What I see before me is Western Imperialism. One response is for Russia to surrender - I suggest Versailles as the location, hopefully the same railway carriage is there but if it is any consolation the Nazis will be on the winning side.

I don't think it's they simple. The US use of nuclear weapons took place when they were new and an unknown factor in warfare. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I missed that completely, thanks for pointing that all out: it's easy to use nuclear weapons when no-one else has them and they are low yield in effect. No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

No threat of proportional response 'in kind' which a nice thing to have in a conflict.

Right, and this is why low yield nukes; artillery shells dialed to a few hundred tons, man portable rockets capable of replicating the explosive power of the world's largest conventional bombs, etc. become unthinkable to use. An individual use isn't that qualitatively different from a large conventional strike, it's just far easier to use. However, the firepower advantage is so huge that you will force your opponent to also begin using nuclear arms. Conventional forces will be helpless against the onslaught of tactical nuclear weapons, and you'll quickly get to a point where lobbing strategic arsenals at each other is the only thing that makes sense, given a single howitzer can wipe out a division with a 5 kiloton yield shell.

It's actually more of a problem for powers like the US and China, who expect to have a conventional advantage in wars if tactical nuclear weapons spread since it reduces their comparable advantage. I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine.

Russia is a fading star. One last bright flash and it is all over. I think they all feel this. — FreeEmotion

I really don't think all Russians accept or support Putin's imperialism. Some do, but I know some and actually many if not all of them are against Putin. Many were in shock about what Putin has done.

They might love their country and culture, but they feel utter contempt what their country is now doing.

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it. — FreeEmotion

How were they kicked around? By inviting Russia to the G7 countries (to become G8)? At least by size of the economy South Korea or India would be more likely.

Ask first, just why do countries neighboring Russia that don't have Russian troops want to join NATO?

That kicking around and demonization happened after the wars Putin has gotten Russia into.

, such a deal would have to be negotiated by Ukraine (the invaded) and Russia (the invader). A bit hard to do with bombs falling (and the implied threat of ramping up military), despite concessions having been made in public for all to hear. Ironically perhaps, something nuclear missiles and NATO have in common is deterrence. Ukraine has neither, just ruined infrastructure, dead, etc, and apparently some war crimes committed. The ball's in the invader's court in that respect and has been for a bit.

, right, no such thing as simple here. The NATO thing was a primary concern though and has been conceded. Getting to the negotiation table is warranted (if that concern was genuine and primary in the first place). Otherwise... Peace was never in the cards? The invasion was inevitable? Long-term plan? :/ (I don't think rhetoric like "weak" and "decadent" is much of a rationale for war, just the usual hot air.) So far, Ukraine has lost infrastructure, people, freedom, but has kicked a good deal of invaders. Russia has lost soldiers, weaponry, freedom of press, trust/goodwill from several other parties, economics, but has inflicted damage on its targets, and is holding some areas.

Completely unrelated, I'm rooting for Sergiy S Tkachenko, an accomplished Ukrainian typographer that's put together nifty fonts and such. Otherwise occupied at the moment, though.

Come, ssu, get with the program. Who cares about Russian history? History matters only when it revolves around the US. Everything revolves around the US. America is so powerful that it dwarfs all other causal factors, in all matters, everywhere.

Enough about Russia and Ukraine already. This thread, like every thread having to do with politics and current events, is about America. — SophistiCat

:up:

Ironically perhaps, something nuclear missiles and NATO have in common is deterrence. Ukraine has neither, just ruined infrastructure, dead, etc, and apparently some war crimes committed. The ball's in the invader's court in that respect and has been for a bit. — jorndoe

Similarly to my country, Ukraine's only deterrence would have been it's will to fight and ability to cause losses to the Russian army.

A deterrence it actually had, but crucially nobody believed it would have.

Not after losing Crimea without one bullet fired.

That even the West that had assisted in the training of the armed forces for years now anticipated that the conventional war would last only days and then it would quickly become a guerilla war shows clearly that the West didn't put much faith in Ukraine.

Add to this a dictator whose outrageous gambles (annexing Crimea, intervening in the US elections, intervening in Syria...) have been extremely successful and haven't been costly and one can easily see why the deterrence that Ukraine ought to have had (as now it has show what it can defend itself) didn't materialize.

It would be chaos. The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia. Now it’s becoming less stable again fast. A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it.

The climate we’re used to had stabilised over millennia. — Punshhh

It wasn't going to stay that way, though.

Yes, but with the effects of our modern civilisation it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising. We may see some extreme weather events and growing in number.

It’s hardly “water under the bridge.”
— Xtrix

I know. NATO is evil. Evil. Evil evil evil evil. — Olivier5

I'm not sure how to take this. Is this what you believe or is it an attempt to mock what you think I believe?

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" by most people in the west. The Russians certainly haven't forgotten -- and rightfully so.

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

(And, once again, in case there's any doubt: I condemn Putin's actions without question. I condemned the actions of 9/11, as well; was it also not relevant to understand the role of US foreign policy, particularly with Israel, in that situation? Is understanding how the Iraq war created ISIS and its atrocities? Or was that water under the bridge too?)

A nuclear winter would make no difference, or make it worse. — Punshhh

IF we have a nuclear war, hundreds of cities nuked, enormous firestorms all round the planet, you can rest, quite assured that global warming will drop to the bottom of the list of things to worry about. As Tom Lehrer put it back in the 1960,

Oh, we will all fry together when we fry
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by
There will be no more misery, when the world is our rotisserie
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry

But we’re past the tipping point now, so there’s no stopping it. — Punshhh

My guess is that we are beyond the tipping point -- but I have no data to back up the guess. (Please don't send me data; I'm old and have no time to process extra data sets.) Whether we are or not, we will likely lurch into successively more difficult climate events that will be difficult to predict.

Tra la la

it’s the rate of change which is different and destabilising — Punshhh

Absolutely.

I have to imagine some of this played a role in the Chinese nuclear guarantee of Ukraine. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Thanks for the clarification, I missed the Chines nuclear gaurentee?

Military hardware is one thing, but military personnel and higher officials - do they have to have different make - up from the rest of us? They have to be able to bring themselves to take actions which would incinerate large numbers of civilians at the touch of a button - do you have to lose your soul first?

Killing is often misrepresented in film as far easier than it is. In reality, the “duty” is mentally taxing, leaving most soldiers physically ill in the moment and often haunted by nightmares for a lifetime. Being responsible for ending the life of another human is a significant source of trauma; trauma that is compounded by factors such as proximity to the victim and the type of weapon used.

One of the factors that Grossman explores in detail is distance. If the victim is far away and out of sight, the mental impact of the act of killing is far less. When soldiers can’t see the victims it is easier to remain in denial about the consequences of their actions.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/201402/death-becomes-us-the-psychological-trauma-killing

Would you desire to have your countries politicians do "one last bright flash and it is all over"? I don't think so. — ssu

What I meant was that I see Russia as having one last chance to survive as a sovereign and independent nation. I am fine with living in a vassal state, but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence. I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two. Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth. England had 'colonised' about 80% of the world, before those in power realized their mistake.

Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations? I think the little freedom it as a superpower diminished with the break-up. After all, superpowers have super powers, being able to see things others do not see, and able to leap over the edifice of international law and treaties in a single bound.

First-hand accounts and footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmzJr1oUjKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roeBgx3M5Eo

I am fine with living in a vassal state — FreeEmotion

Well I'm not.

Some utterly delusional people might think it's totally equivalent to live in Belarus or in the UK as if UK being an ally of US is thus "a vassal state" of the US. It's just preposterous and simply disgusting. Putin murders his opponents and has a created a totalitarian police state with now more political prisoners in prisons that the Soviet Union. So do you want your country to be a "vassal state" to him, because being a vassal state to Russia is what the definition literally means while implying that being in NATO makes you a vassal state of the US is this verbal rhetoric leftist "intellectuals" can use. So go to Belarus and notice the difference.

but there is a certain responsibility of a nation to preserve its independence. — FreeEmotion

Yes, that's what the Ukrainians are doing.

I see no imperialism in securing a buffer state or two. — FreeEmotion

Do you understand just how crazy that sounds? Securing buffer states is imperialist jargon.

Imperialism is sailing across the oceans to gain control over territory in order to gain wealth. — FreeEmotion

Imperialism is to assume you have a right for buffer states. Imperialism is to declare that another country is artificial, somehow incapable of governing itself and thus your country, as a stronger country, has the right to take charge of it and then exploit it because the weak have to fail and might makes right. Imperialism is to conquer more territory and subjugate other people. Because your better.

Russia just hadn't had that ocean that it has sailed over. It has had just an ocean of steppe and land to walk over through, but it's actions have been totally similar to the Western powers. The only difference is that while the Western Imperialist countries de-colonized, Russia didn't. It was preserved because of the Soviet Union.

Is Russia a free country in terms of its international relations? — FreeEmotion

You should ask yourself right now, is Russia a free country for starters and what it's actually doing.

Ask yourself, just why are Russia neighbors trying to join NATO? Or more basically, why they want to be

Because if you assume that Russia would have this natural right to have buffer zones or two, then you are defending that imperialism.

As for morality, there is the morality of representing the Russian people's wish not to be kicked around on the world stage, surrounded and demonized and President Putin's duty to fight for the honor of his country. This is how I see it.

I’m surprised to hear this here. It’s back to front, upside down from the reality.

In reality “Putin’s duty to fight for the honour of his country”, is Putin playing the saviour of the people allegedly receiving hate from outside, so as to boost support and cement need for his autocracy to continue. This is strait from the autocrat playbook.

The idea that the Russian people have been kicked around on the world stage is also false. It may have happened more recently. But for many years before that, there had been many moves to be more inclusive to Russia, for example sporting tournaments have been held there, even an international football tournament was to be hosted by Russia at the moment. This is now cancelled. A colleague of mine who is a curator for the V&A museum in the U.K. was due to stage an important museum exhibition in Moscow prior to the Salisbury poisonings. Which was immediately cancelled at that time. There was lots of socio-cultural (along with economic) integration going on with European people.

It is solely the aggressive and accusative behaviour of the Putin regime over a number of years which has caused the breakdown in this cooperation, leading inexorably to this crisis. Behaviour taken from that same autocratic playbook.

Not after losing Crimea without one bullet fired. — ssu

Putin was probably hoping for a repeat of that when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 - an analysis of Russian preparations and the current status of the conflict might throw up clues as to how short the war was expected to be in the eyes of the Russian top brass. They seem to be at their wits end now that stiff Ukrainian resistance has prolonged Moscow's annexation plans.

If anybody hasn't yet heard this eloquent response from the Kenyan UN ambassador, one should hear it. It was given just before the war actually started. At least he understands the connection of the current war to an imperialist past.

Putin was probably hoping for a repeat of that when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 Feb 2022 - an analysis of Russian preparations and the current status of the conflict might throw up clues as to how short the war was expected to be in the eyes of the Russian top brass. They seem to be at their wits end now that the stiff Ukrainian resistance has prolonged the Moscow's annexation plans. — Agent Smith

Add to the spectacular dismissal of the people in the FSB, who's job was to give intel about Ukraine. Obviously Putin was angry. Likely they had given him the intel he wanted to hear.

Yes, this is what extremely likely happened. For Putin, this was the launching of his own "Operation Barbarossa", a venture that will fail because the hubris from earlier success got to him, just as it one former German leader last century.

Yet it should be noticed that now he has de facto admitted failure and withdrawn troops from the Kyiv front totally. But if he would be a realist, he would a) forget and never mention 9th of May and set timetables and b) take the time he needs to reorganize his troops.

But the way the Russian system goes, it's likely that next offensive is made in haste. It takes a lot more than 50 days for Russians to really get their act together. Which in the long term is good as I truly hope Putin will endure a huge defeat in Ukraine.

Thanks for that video, Great speech, short and clear. It didn't have to be like this... I haven't heard much from 'our' leaders of this wisdom. I speak, incidentally, from Wales, a vassal state of England; the self-styled "first colony" thereof.

:up:

If the latter: no, I don't think NATO is "evil." That's meaningless. I think the promises and assurances made by Bush/Baker to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward is not meaningless. I think that's very relevant, especially right now -- even if it's considered "water under the bridge" — Xtrix

Why is it relevant? What are the implications for the way forward?

I don't think the US would take kindly to China or Pakistan forming a "strategic alliance" with Canada and Mexico, for example. What would the reaction be in that case, in your opinion?

I would hope they don't attack Jamaica over the pretext that Jamaicans want to join this alliance but haven't yet.