The point I was making was that National Socialism a.k.a. Nazism was an influential movement in Finland. And as you can see from the Independent article, Wikipedia, etc., Sweden collaborated with Hitler, engaging in trade, etc., with Nazi Germany. The same people are now saying that the world should stop trading with Russia. Why not China, Saudi Arabia, Turkey ...?

But I agree that Ukraine's Azov group raises some interesting questions that should not be suppressed. And let's not forget that Zelensky has imposed martial law on Ukraine, has taken over all the news media, has banned opposition parties and jailed opposition leaders, etc., etc.

Another interesting question is how much influence Western powers actually have on his government.

Key word: allegedly.
— Olivier5

Sure. — Isaac

I take that back: it's not even alledged. Editor-in-chief of Consortium News Joe Lauria writes that it’s “more than conceivable” the outlet is being punished for its Ukraine coverage.

So two fringe leftist sites lose (temporarily) access to their Paypal account, and now it is more than conceivable that it's all a blowback for their Ukraine coverage, huh?

Maybe. We live in strange times. Anyway, Paypal is like a bank, and you can't force a bank to fund your operation if they don't like it.

Now that's collboration — Baden

I never said it wasn't, did I?

But the issue was Nazism in Ukraine and other European countries. And as far as I'm aware, unlike many Swedes and Finns, Stalin wasn't a Nazi. He was a Marxist-Leninist. Or Stalinist, if you prefer. :smile:

BTW, even Marxism-Leninism was an import from the West ....

Your issue is trying to throw mud at Sweden and Finland by dragging up irrelevancies like pre-Nazi swastikas and a few fascist policeman from the thirties. Pretty desperate stuff tbh.

Paypal is like a bank, and you can't force a bank to fund your operation if they don't like it. — Olivier5

Interesting. I've only just had the same trouble with @frank. There must be something going round.

If I want information on the legal freedoms of PayPal, I should probably consult an expert in corporate law. The only conversation worth having on a lay forum is on what they ought to do, not what they legally can or cannot do. The question is whether they ought have closed those accounts (if for that reason), not whether they legally could.

They didn't close the accounts. In fact the issue is now solved, according to Consortium News' Twitter feed.

It's a non-issue. 'Nough said.

More interestingly, while surfing the interwaves, I stumbled (if you pardon my mixed metaphors) on this extraordinary depiction of the Spirit of America, by a certain Howard Chandler Christy. I thought you'd like it:



That's EXACTLY how I see America... Ain't she beautiful?

"Ukrainian forces have retaken another village in the northern Kharkiv region as a counteroffensive continues against Russian forces.

In a video circulating Telegram, troops were seen placing a flag on a building in the village of Molodova, just 13 miles southeast of the Ukraine-Russia border. CNN has geolocated and verified the authenticity of the video."
https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-05-04-22/h_51987ee955a58f8caa0c940faaca0a3b

Now that's collboration, baby. — Baden

Wouldn't be the division of Poland in 1939 between the two be more than just collaboration, but cooperation?



And those that are so obsessed with nazis and the far right in Europe, should first look at what government openly has supported these movements:

It (Russia) has both turned a blind eye to far-right paramilitarism within its own borders and actively cultivated neo-Nazism in the West. These decisions align with its broader project to sow discord in Western democracies and influence transcontinental relations, despite its relatively weak military and economy. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s support for right-wing violence in the West constitutes an element in his broader destabilization campaign.

If I remember correctly, the Nordic Resistance Movement was banned in Finland. The movement has had close ties with Russian extremist movements like the Russian Imperial Movement. (see here). And the movement openly seeked Russian assistance of "fellow minded" groups to participate in demonstrations on the Finnish Independence Day. At least a promise was given, but I don't know if anything came of it. But it at least tells how these racist movements don't have much left of the old divide between nazi and communist ideology. But then again, Russia isn't communist.

And of course, we shouldn't forget that there is underway an effort for trolling in the social media:

Since the beginning of Russia's attack on Ukraine, an aggressive campaign of trolling under the sign "Cyber Front Z" — referring to the war — has been ongoing. These so-called troll factories — which target Western leaders, media and social media — have been operating in Russia for years.

* * *

Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, ordinary Russian internet users have also been recruited for trolling operations — such as online shaming.

The trolling efforts also attempt to fill the social media feeds of targeted users with disinformation. Another preferred method is "brigading", steering discussion on social media and in comments sections towards Kremlin-favoured opinions.

One of the current Irish parties of government has its roots in the Irish fascist 'blue shirt' movement of the thirties. Have they anything to do with fascism now? No, zero. But I suppose if we wanted to join NATO, the Russian troll army would be calling us Nazis too. :lol:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshirts

Your issue is trying to throw mud at Sweden and Finland — Baden

Of course, mud should only be thrown at Russia, Germany, and everyone else that disagrees with the mandatory EU-NATO line. And Wikipedia is Putin's troll army ... :rofl:

That would surely happen.

The underlying objective is twofold: to a) convince Russians that the evil Westerners are nazis and that they are out to get them and b) to convince Americans that these people joining NATO are scum, closet nazis, and not worth wile to defend.

They didn't close the accounts. In fact the issue is now solved, according to Consortium News' Twitter feed.

It's a non-issue. — Olivier5

Weird. It's like I'm speaking another language. Do you know what the word 'ought' means?

to convince Americans that these people joining NATO are scum, closet nazis, and not worth wile to defend. — ssu

Nice Freudian slip. I thought NATO was totally independent and not at all America's lapdog. So what good would it do convincing "Americans" that Sweden and Finland are not worth defending? Surely the opinion of Americans would be nothing more than a barely significant single voice in the communal sharing, Hare Krishna inspired group hugging session that is NATO's decision-making body?

Do you know what the word 'ought' means? — Isaac

I do. Do you?

1. First you said that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is a threat. But all nuclear arsenals are a potential threat, including those of America, Britain, and France. — Apollodorus

I’m responsible for what I write not for what you understand. First of all, I didn’t focus on the nuclear threat per se. What I said was more articulated: “Russia is a direct existential threat to the West (primarily to the EU), given its nuclear arsenal and related repeated threats, its political infiltration in support of populist movements in the West, its veto power at the UN, its energetic blackmailing, its military presence in the Middle East and in Africa, its power concentration in one man's hands, and Putin's declared ambitions to establish a new world order with China and directly antagonise the West. ”
That is what makes Russia under Putin a direct existential threat to the West. Not a single condition but a set of conditions, including the nuclear threat. And it’s not only question of human lives and territorial integrity, but also of institutions and wellbeing.

2. Then you said that Russia is a threat and/or Putin invaded Ukraine because of my “propaganda”, which sounds pretty incomprehensible and irrational to me. — Apollodorus

No I didn’t say that either. You wrote “if you've got a problem with Russia invading Ukraine, go talk to Putin. I’ve got nothing to do with it!”. I simply said you do have something to do with Russia invading Ukraine b/c Russia is not just conducting a war in Ukraine, but also a worldwide propaganda war to gain support and stir aversion toward Western involvement in Ukraine against Russian criminal expansionism. And your propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism.

3. The quotes you posted do not show that the US regards Russia as an imminent nuclear threat. Statements like “if someone does x, we’re going to do y”, do not support your claim. — Apollodorus

So what?! I never used the expression “imminent nuclear threat”. And even Ukraine entering NATO wasn’t an imminent nuclear threat to Russia, yet Putin waged war against Ukraine and started menacing the West with nuclear threats every other day. The risk of escalation (especially in the usage of tactical nukes by that Russians) as suggested by the Russian nuclear doctrine, Russian politicians’ declarations, and Russian performance on the battle field is what the West must deal with well before any imminent nuclear threat.

4. And now you’re saying that “Nobody is going to wait for Putin to make the first move on this”. If that is the case, why are you waiting???!!! :rofl: — Apollodorus

Who is waiting?! The West is neither deterred by Russian nuclear escalation threats from supporting Ukraine given the growing military support to Ukraine (BTW the latest US security package for Ukraine, includes gear designed to protect Ukrainian forces from nuclear, biological and chemical exposure), regime of sanctions against Russia, and rearming programs against Russian military threats (while Finland and Sweden plan to join NATO). Nor refraining from developing and coordinating their deterrence strategies against Russian nuclear threats: the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies (not to mention that the current Russian nuclear posturing was practically foreshadowed since 2018). And things are on the move in terms of nuclear deterrence preparation inside many European countries (e.g. Poland announced its readiness to host US nukes).

Don't blame Wiki for your amateur attempts at spin. And if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. Of course, you don't appear to think you need to.

Propaganda in the United States – Wikipedia:

Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities. Propaganda is carefully curated information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread, usually to preserve the self-interest of a nation. It is used in advertising, radio, newspaper, posters, books, television and other media. Propagandists may provide either factual or non-factual information to their audiences, often emphasizing positive features and downplaying negative ones, or vice versa, in order to shape wide scale public opinion or influence behavioral changes …

Psychological operations (United States) – Wikipedia

Psychological operations (PSYOP) are operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior perceived to be favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict.

Ukraine conflict: Further false images shared online – BBC

Misleading posts have come from "official" sources as well as from "ordinary" social media users.
One example was a tweet posted by the verified account of the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence.
Footage of an aerial dogfight is accompanied by the caption "MiG-29 of the Air Force of the Armed Forces destroys the 'unparalleled' Su-35 of the Russian occupiers".
However, it's video game footage from the game Digital Combat Simulator World. This isn't the first time that game footage has been used to illustrate military action.
One clip of old and incorrectly labelled footage has been viewed over 18 million times on video-sharing platform TikTok ….

Of course, Wikipedia, BBC, Twitter, and TikTok are all owned by Putin. So, I guess it must be all lies ….

What I said was more articulated — neomac

Well, if a statement is "more articulated" that doesn't make it more logical, comprehensible, or true, does it?

You're claiming that my "propaganda is instrumental to Russian criminal expansionism".

But you have completely failed to demonstrate (a) that my statements were "propaganda" and (b) that they have any impact on Russia's foreign policy.

Moreover, I never said I was "against Western involvement in Ukraine", so there really is no need for you to make things up. As far as I am concerned, Russia and the West can do in Ukraine whatever they want to. Let them fight it out and whoever is the best fighter deserves to win. Very simple and easy to understand IMO.

Yes, I am against NATO and against the EU because I am against imperialism. But I think discussion forums are for people to exchange views without resorting to ad hominems and insults.

Ukraine entering NATO may or may not be a nuclear threat to Russia. That's for Russia to decide, not for you or me. But the situation is much more complex than that. If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, it might try to push Russia out of Crimea. This would be unacceptable to Russia (a) because Crimea has never been Ukrainian, (b) because this would result in NATO control of the Black Sea which Russia needs for access to the Mediterranean, and (c) because Crimea has been the base of Russia's Black Sea fleet for centuries (from 1783, to be more precise):

Black Sea Fleet - Wikipedia

So, I think an objective analysis of the situation needs to consider the concerns of both sides, not just one.

Anyway, if you think that "the US is preparing contingency scenarios with its allies", and is "not waiting", then there is nothing to worry about. So, you still don't make any sense.

In the meantime, I note that the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons is the US .... :smile:

On August 6, 1945, a uranium-based weapon, Little Boy, was detonated above the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and three days later, a plutonium-based weapon, Fat Man, was detonated above the Japanese city of Nagasaki. To date, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only two instances of nuclear weapons being used in combat. The atomic raids killed at least one hundred thousand Japanese civilians and military personnel outright, with the heat, radiation, and blast effects. Many tens of thousands would later die of radiation sickness and related cancers

History of nuclear weapons - Wikipedia

So, I'm not sure who is more likely to use nuclear weapons. A country that has never done it, or one that has?

And if you think I haven't been critical of NATO, you haven't been reading the thread. — Baden

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. For me, I despise Russia, want Sweden and Finland to join Nato, and at the same time criticize Nato for past conduct. It's entirely possible to have complexity in all of this, but not for some it seems.

That I and SSU want our nations to join Nato in order to have a guaranteed defense against possible aggression from the east equals we are Nazis because Russia conducts that bullshit propaganda with peaceful figures like Astrid Lindgren, is a narrative that is so fucking moronic that it becomes satire. Are the Russian trolls and apologists really this desperate to push their agenda? :shade:

Nice Freudian slip. I thought NATO was totally independent and not at all America's lapdog. So what good would it do convincing "Americans" that Sweden and Finland are not worth defending? — Isaac

A strawman argument from you. The role of the US is obvious in NATO. One can arguably be critical of the actions that NATO has taken, especially with the Kosovo war and Libya. At least I was. What sucks in my mind is when NATO hasn't been in the role of a defense pact, but has tried out in it's a "new" NATO role (that even Trump pushed) where it has to counter "new threats" and act in other roles than in just as a defensive treaty. This "new NATO" thinking made a lot of Finns be critical about the organization. Which at those times before the Russian-Georgian war, had no plans to defend the Baltic States. I guess during those times if Finland would have joined, it would have been urged to do away with it's area defence and conscription, and opt to build it's armed forces to be better suited for international operations. Luckily that time has passed.

If Trump would have had his way, perhaps the US would have withdrawn from NATO, which likely would make the European countries form a new defensive pact. Let's not forget that both CENTO and SEATO are already in the dustbin of history.

Are the Russian trolls and apologists really this desperate to push their agenda? :shade: — Christoffer

They are reurgitating the same message, but now it has grown old. Now there's no strategic surprise, it all can be anticipated and people do understand how the playbook goes.

Just as with the Russian incursions in our air spaces: yesterday a Russian Mi-17 flew several kilometers inside of Finnish air space on the eastern border and last Friday an An-30 aircraft breached both Swedish and Danish air space around Bornholm.

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. For me, I despise Russia, want Sweden and Finland to join Nato, and at the same time criticize Nato for past conduct. — Christoffer

This is the stupidity typical to our time. It's the absurdity of someone declaring himself to be against imperialism and then denying the obvious imperialism of one side and solely concentrating on the other side, as we can see in this thread. The inability to be critical about both sides when they deserve it is telling.

A lynchpin of the argument exculpating NATO is that it is merely a defensive organisation with no significant role in America's imperialistic agenda. I was merely pointing out that even you don't believe that, it's just a convenient narrative in your continued efforts to ensure discussion of America's culpability is sufficiently diluted as to be rendered useless.

Oh look, here it is again...

The inability to be critical about both sides when they deserve it is telling. — ssu

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Putin is probably not reading this thread. Nor, I doubt, are many in his inner circle, or even many Russians at all. So being critical of 'that side' when they deserve it would achieve what, exactly?

I think the main problem is that it's impossible for some to criticize Nato AND condemn Russia. — Christoffer

It's not impossible, just not something some of us have any interest in doing. That you have to go around wearing your heart on your sleeve is endearing but it's not for you to start dictating that others must too.

A lynchpin of the argument exculpating NATO is that it is merely a defensive organisation with no significant role in America's imperialistic agenda. I was merely pointing out that even you don't believe that, it's just a convenient narrative in your continued efforts to ensure discussion of America's culpability is sufficiently diluted as to be rendered useless. — Isaac

When it comes to international operations, especially the so-called "peace enforcing" operations, there is much to criticize.

I think a military organization ought to stick to it's founding rules: that NATO is a) a pact where the members won't use military force against each other and b) have a common defense. Article 1 is as important as Article 5, even if it should be obvious. It isn't. Just look at the Gulf Cooperation Council (or remember the former Warsaw Pact). Yet without NATO, I think another Greco-Turkish war would have already happened.

When NATO has ventured off from this, as it has done, starts the criticism. Still, do note how "disappointed" the US has been with NATO when it hasn't been this tool of US agenda. Members can choose how to participate and when. So as a tool of US imperialism, it's not a reliable tool to be used to every wish that the US has. NATO didn't participate in the invasion of Iraq, but it did participate in the war in Afghanistan, where in the end there were more NATO troops than Americans when Biden decided to pull out. NATO is basically only effective, when both the US and it's European members agree on things, not when the disagree.

And let's look at those major NATO operations:

Operation Allied Force, Kosovo-Montenegro-Serbia 1999
Afghanistan War, Afghanistan 2003
NATO Training Mission-Iraq, Iraq 2004
Operation Ocean Shield, Somalia 2009
Military Intervention in Libya 2011

Of these Operation Ocean Shield should be exempted, as both China and Russia (and India) have participated in similar operations and the operation is approved by the Security Council.

It's not impossible, just not something some of us have any interest in doing. — Isaac

Why not? What do you got to lose if you say the truth?

I think a military organization ought to stick to it's founding rules: that NATO is a) a pact where the members won't use military force against each other and b) have a common defense... When NATO has ventured off from this, as it has done, starts the criticism. — ssu

Exactly.

So the argument that NATO expansion was not provocation because NATO is merely a defensive organisation doesn't hold water does it? You've just admitted that it has, on occasion, "ventured off" from that principle. How then do you now support the counter-argument given against the Mearsheimer/Kennan/Burns narrative of a Russia provoked by NATO expansion. Your only counter in the past has been that a) NATO is not imperialist (even if America might be) and b) NATO is purely defensive. Both those positions you seem now to be admitting are weak. NATO is clearly not at all times defensive (certainly not from the perspective of those it opposes), and NATO clearly is more heavily influenced by America's agenda than it would like to publicise.

All of this without mentioning that NATO's green-lighting of US foreign wars is as much an issue for the US's enemies as would be its actual military support. In terms of Ukraine, Russia has as much to fear from a Ukraine aligned to an organisation prepared to stand by and allow America free-reign as it does from one prepared to do America's bidding.

What do you got to lose if you say the truth? — Olivier5

Why would I have anything to lose? I've nothing to lose from a game of tennis either, it doesn't mean I've any interest in playing one.

It's true that there's mist in the fields this morning - I'm no more obliged to announce it to the world by its veracity.

A couple of books that I read that would be of interest to anyone participating in this thread are Peter Pomerantsev's This Is Not Propaganda, Adventures in the War Against Reality and his Nothing Is True and Everything Is Possible, The Surreal Heart of the New Russia. Both are very good and very well-written! They offer insight as well as entertainment! The former book is probably more important given recent events though.

I think we all know every country has a Nazi problem. Ukraine and Russia have a serious Nazi problem, because unlike most other countries, they like to give them arms.

Still, it's odd to be so disinterested in the truth.