So the argument that NATO expansion was not provocation because NATO is merely a defensive organisation doesn't hold water does it? — Isaac

Let's go to NATO articles:

Article 10
The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

It states that European states willing to join it are by unanimous agreement to be invited. A larger number of member states will increase those objective, both article 1 and 5. And you can judge yourself if the change both in Sweden and Finland towards NATO has happened because of actions by Russia or by some influencing campaign by the Biden administration.

And just compare the situation to the allies of US that it installed after an military invasion: Iraqi government and Afghan government. The Afghan government is no more, and it should be noted that Afghanistan under the Emirate hasn't turned into a terrorist safe haven (which was the reasoning for the war). And when the Pro-US government was still operating, there were huge difficulties in the relationship. And so is with Iraq. Closer inspection of this relationship shows that there is real tensions and huge problems in this relationship.

Well, hang on a second. Your argument seemed to be that the descendants of the Normans are "still totally in control of the population", and "did the global empire building you refer to".

Ahh! this is the sentence I wrote which gave you that impression;

“Who’s descendants, still totally in control of the population, did the global empire building you refer to.”

I was describing the people who initiated the empire building (in the 17th century) in Britain.

The fact that there was some interbreeding, or the occasional outsider was welcomed into the fold doesn’t alter the course of history here. So there isn’t a pure bloodline. Also if you quote passages and articles from academic history, you are repeating the history which was written by the victors. The truth of the history is just beneath the surface, but ignored by these scholars.

For example, you describe Churchill’s flirtation with some notional Anglo Saxon roots. Take a look at his family home.

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

He was deeply rooted in that class system created by the Normans.

In reality the Normans carved up the country following the invasion in 1066 and shared it out between them. Then followed 300 or 400 years of brutal rule with an Iron fist. By the 15th century this way of life had become normal. The class system was long established, no one remembered the Britain before the Normans. The “upper classes” (code for our Ruling overlords) then became sanitised into the landed gentry. It’s true that the middle classes and industrialists etc subsequently built the empire etc, but the institutions and the class system was already long established, which they worked within.

There is a history of the upper classes being above the law. Law breaking, infidelities where always hushed up. The establishment was subservient and turned a blind eye. This is a hang over from the days of Norman rule in which the rulers literally where above the law.

Take a look at our glorious leader, Boris Johnson, the son of immigrants, but schooled at Eton and Oxford. Institutions established by the upper classes for their offspring. He sees himself above the law.

I referenced the caste system as an example of the rigidity of the class system.

How then do you now support the counter-argument given against the Mearsheimer/Kennan/Burns narrative of a Russia provoked by NATO expansion. — Isaac

The Mearsheimer / Kennan narratives just assumes that large countries ought to have "buffer zones" and "spheres of influence" and can do whatever they want with them. If those state opted out of the Soviet Union / Russian Empire, there might be a reason for them to do it, you know.

And just how the Great Powers treat these "buffer zones" is crucial. One could argue that Canada is in the "buffer zone" of the US. So how many times the US has intervened in Canadian domestic politics? How many times the US has openly denounced some Canadian parties or candidates and openly promoted others? How many times the US has threatened with military intervention. The US has had those imperial ambitions on Canada and on Canadian territory in the 19th Century, that is true. But not in the 20th Century or now.

There's a little difference between being under the "sphere of influence" of the US or Russia. If you think that they are totally similar, then I have to disagree.

it's odd to be so disinterested in the truth. — Olivier5

You really do say the oddest things. I realise this may come as a shock to the Twitter generation, but what I discuss in online forums is not the sum total of all that I'm interested in.

It's true that Russia is East of Europe - do I take your failure to mention this truth each time we mention Russia as an indication that you're not interested in truth?

I'm not clear how either of these replies addresses the issue.

You say that the articles, as written, are defensive and inclusive - but we've just established that NATO does not always act in accordance with those written articles, so that seems irrelevant.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too.

Then you say that there's a difference between being in America's sphere of influence and Russia's. I agree (though we may disagree about how much of a difference). But again, what relevance this has to the argument about Western culpability is lost on me. That Russia considers itself to have a sphere of influence and will protect it militarily if provoked is all that is necessary to accept that NATO expansion into that sphere acts as provocation. Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument.

Well, at least Brazil will be completely out of the mainstream press for a few months now...

Former Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said Russia never should have invaded Ukraine, but he believes Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy is as much to blame for the war as Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Lula said it is irresponsible for Western leaders to celebrate Zelenskiy because they are encouraging war instead of focusing on closed-door negotiations to stop the fighting.

"I see the President of Ukraine, speaking on television, being applauded, getting a standing ovation by all the European parliamentarians," he told Time.

"This guy is as responsible as Putin for the war. Because in the war, there's not just one person guilty," he added.

Lula said Biden and European Union leaders failed to do enough to negotiate with Russia in the run-up to its invasion of Ukraine in February.

"The United States has a lot of political clout. And Biden could have avoided war, not incited it," he said. "Biden could have taken a plane to Moscow to talk to Putin. This is the kind of attitude you expect from a leader."

The United States and European Union could have avoided the invasion by stating that Ukraine would not join NATO, he said.

"Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. But it's not just Putin who is guilty. The U.S. and the EU are also guilty," Lula said. — https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-says-zelenskiy-as-responsible-putin-ukraine-war-2022-05-04/

..the chattering classes will be tongue-tied. Do they support Lula against Bolsonaro and appear off-message about Ukraine, or support Bolsonaro against Lula and appear off-message on Covid. Their poor little heads...

Shut up, Brazil, nobody care what you think. Keep the cheap coffee and cattle feed coming. And let's not talk about deforestation too much.

Lula is out of his depth here. Russians are guilty of war crimes. They are torturing, murdering and bombing civilians every day. There is no equivalence with the Ukrainians.

It's just that you are a proven serial liar, and you decided to use your lying talents to defend war criminals. It's hard to understand.

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

And this is the reason why it's impossible to discuss with people like you since you live by dogma and not reason or rationality. The world is complex to the point where something can be good and bad and the moral decisions rather reflect the most good or least bad rather than blind idealism ignoring reality. If your "interest" gets in the way of rational thought then why are you even on a philosophy board? Truth doesn't care about your interests, you're just an evangelist for your own personal opinions.

And this is the reason why it's impossible to discuss with people like you since you live by dogma and not reason or rationality. — Christoffer

Reason and rationality have nothing to do with it. One can 'reasonably and rationally' discuss the extent to which one's own country is at fault, or one can 'reasonably and rationally' discuss which country is most at fault. The reasonableness of the conversation is not the distinguishing factor, the topic is.

I've no interest in determining who is 'most' to blame, nor have I any interest in declaring my judgement on that, nor have any interest in whether it is possible to construct narratives supporting or opposing any given policy. I'm interested in exploring the extent to which my country (and it's allies) is to blame, and in whether my preferred narrative remains plausible.

None of those interests (or lack thereof) have any bearing on the rationality or complexity with which those interests are pursued.

If you want to declare your Damoclesean judgement to the world at large, you crack on, but don't expect the rest of us to share your hobbies.

Lula also wants to break free from US dollar hegemony, which is of course the exact rational response to the American abuse of power:

https://multipolarista.com/2022/05/04/brazil-lula-latin-america-currency-us-dollar/

Which means of course, that there will be a coup attempt backed by the US relatively soon after he wins power, if he does.

And this follows China's recent meeting to look into how to detach from the USD as well:

https://www.ft.com/content/45d5fcac-3e6d-420a-ac78-4b439e24b5de

This is the price the US is paying for its renewed transatlantic brotherliness: the fracturing of it's global hegemony. Good news.

--

Also I will never stop laughing at @Christoffer's insistence that everything is 'really nuanced and subtle', which apparently means: NATO and the US are entirely blameless and the only agent which must be punished is Russia and literally anything else means you are an agent of Putin. It's so gloriously stupid.

I've no interest in determining who is 'most' to blame, nor have I any interest in declaring my judgement on that, nor have any interest in whether it is possible to construct narratives supporting or opposing any given policy. I'm interested in exploring the extent to which my country (and it's allies) is to blame, and in whether my preferred narrative remains plausible. — Isaac

I don't care what you are interested in or want, no one is here to follow your interests but you argue in a way that requires everyone else to agree with you first and then discuss. The point is that what you are arguing has nothing to do with what I wrote since it's about what you are interested in.

The fact is that if we are discussing this from a moral perspective it is entirely necessary to determine guilt and if everyone can be blamed for something, then it's necessary to pinpoint the context.

You are only interested in your own set narrative, which means discussing with you is pointless, as has been stated plenty of times. Especially since you are dishonest and say just about anything to make a point. I have no interest in discussing your interests, you can play around with that on your own.

No peace in Europe until Russia goes through a path of repentance
Op-Ed, Alexandre Rodnianski, Ukrainian film director and producer, Le Monde

One hundred years ago, the first of the five "philosophers' ships" left St. Petersburg for Germany, carrying hundreds of intellectuals expelled from Soviet Russia, including the famous philosophers and scientists Nikolai Berdyaev, Sergei Bulgakov, Ivan Ilyin, Vladimir Lossky and many others. This phrase -- "ship of philosophers" -- served as a metaphor for the intellectual catastrophe that Russia endured.

One hundred years later, another boat has come into focus: "Russian military ship, fuck you!" […] It has become the most popular meme of the present time. And the metaphor of the courageous resistance of Ukrainians.

Boutcha, Irpine, Hostomel... The pictures of the streets of these quiet villages that the Russian army left, as well as their names, have become synonymous with the war crimes of Putin's Russia. The atrocious images have been shown around the world: dozens of inhabitants shot in the streets in front of their houses, in the courtyards and on the sidewalks, some with their hands tied, some with a bullet in the head, others with traces of torture on their bodies, the numerous testimonies of collective rape of women...

These images made me lose the gift of speech. And I felt that I was losing the right to speak about "Russian culture". Like all those who are from this milieu. Why?

"Writing a poem after Auschwitz is barbaric," Theodor Adorno seems to have said. After Boutcha, I felt that it was unnecessary to talk about Russian culture anymore. And for the same reason: that of not having prevented the Russian from falling into barbarism, savagery, bestiality. Many people in the cultural world felt guilty as well.

I can't stop thinking about the nature of violence, about the emergence of the beast in the average human being, about what authorizes him to rape a fifteen-year-old girl with his friends, to shoot peaceful residents riding their bicycles through their town, to kill unarmed passers-by with a bullet in the back of their heads.

Why, I asked myself, did nothing prevent the transformation of ordinary people into murderers? Not the school, not the parents, not the culture? [...]

I know Russia and the people who live there.

And I will say what I have seen there in the last few years: the Russian military and police forces were behaving in Russia as the Russian soldiers behaved in Butcha...

Not long ago, the organization Gulagu.net ("No to the Gulag") started to publish video archives of torture in Russian prisons. But the torture did not take place only in these prisons. Russian police beat and abused Russian citizens for years, scalding some, raping others with broomsticks. A new word has appeared in Russian: "bottling", which means "raping with a bottle". You can imagine the level of violence in a society where this word appears.

All life in Russia was marked by this violence - just look at the epidemic of domestic violence against women that spread throughout the country.

Demonstrators were arrested, tried under false pretences, thrown into prison, tortured, forced to leave the country. The "lucky" ones were fined millions of rubles for violations of the law that they had not committed. They were threatened to take away their children, ruined their businesses and were deprived of their livelihood. Not to mention the constant insults and persecutions they were subjected to every day.

This was the famous "Russian world" that the Russians tested first. Then, in a much more tragic form, the peaceful Ukrainians of Boutcha, Irpine, Borodianka.

[...] All the fault lies with the corrupt, cynical, cruel Russian political regime. The totalitarian system that disregards human rights, flouts the law and annihilates free discussion. The responsibility lies with the country's irremovable leader, with the elite and those who benefit from the material well-being of the oil windfall, with the millions of citizens who blindly support the unjust order of things.

And yes: the responsibility also lies with Russian culture, for not having "prevented" the transformation of many human beings into creatures devoid of empathy, for not having "opposed" humanism and humanity to the descent into barbarism and savagery. That it has not "been able to do".

[But] contemporary Russian culture is extremely varied: it is in it that official imperialist resentment and the free and protesting spirit clash. All contemporary Russian culture, famous all over the world, was born under the bludgeons of the police, under the cries of disapproval of society: it was born in spite of the power and is, almost entirely, opposed to Putin.

The selections of the biggest film festivals have always included honest accounts of the current state of affairs in Russia. These were films that spoke about the real problems of the country, about the hardships of everyday Russian life, about injustice, corruption and arbitrariness, about the attempts of ordinary people to fight against the powerful inhuman system.

This is what the films of Zviaguintsev, Sokurov, Balagov or Serebrennikov were about, directors who have been spat on many times by the official Russian media and listed as "traitors and enemies of the people". Their films were released on a limited number of copies, were not shown on television and were not financed by the state.

And today there are demands to boycott these films...

But were they the ones who raised a generation of soldiers who obediently carried out cruel orders? Are these the films that the "heroes" of Boutcha and Irpine have seen over and over again? In the lives of those who committed the Boutcha massacre, the role of culture was more than minimal. They grew up in poverty, in a country where power is worshipped and the right of the "strongest" is respected, in the habit of violence.

This is also where the generation of cynical, deceitful and lying politicians, propagandists and military men came from, the generation of those they created, raised and trained: gloating punks, nostalgic for the "iron fist" and the "huge country".

And only the incisive culture has opposed the imperial matrix that has been self-replicating through the centuries. Its thousands of viewers and readers have resisted totalitarianism -- and continue to do so.

Peace in Europe will not prevail until Russia has walked the path of repentance and rebirth. Ukraine will not feel safe until then -- and neither will Russia's other neighbors.

This is the path that Germany took seventy years ago. And it was the true German culture that helped it to meet this difficult challenge. At that time, no one talked about boycotting those who fought against Nazism - such as Thomas Mann or Bertolt Brecht - or even the Nobel Prize winner for literature Gerhart Hauptmann, whom Goebbels liked so much.

And today, only the authentic Russian culture can serve as a support to help change the country. And definitely to put the imperial matrix out of action.

Today, two ships have left Russia: the "Russian military ship" and the "ship of philosophers". It is very important to shoot one of them without sinking the other.

Also I will never stop laughing at Christoffer's insistence that everything is 'really nuanced and subtle', which apparently means: NATO and the US are entirely blameless — Streetlight

It doesn't "apparently mean" anything like that other than you corrupting what I say in order to get a laugh. You know that it's entirely possible that we in Sweden and Finland need the security of Nato and at the same time can criticize its way of conduct. We can point out that being a member means having influence and since Sweden has a long history of diplomacy, being on the inside of Nato could help tame the more war-mongering nations part of it.

And what I refer to as the Putin trolls are people who, right when Russia conducts propaganda painting national figures of Sweden to be pure Nazis, these trolls begin painting Sweden and Finland as nazis as well. They act like clockwork.

Your strawman of what I write is the only thing stupid here. You have no idea of what the national debate is surrounding Nato, you have no idea of the actual nuances that are being discussed here as part of the process of determining if we're going to join or not. You don't know anything about the moral and philosophical discussion in process here in Sweden about all of this. All you do is strawman in order to laugh. That is stupid.

Lula said Biden and European Union leaders failed to do enough to negotiate with Russia in the run-up to its invasion of Ukraine in February. — https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/brazils-lula-says-zelenskiy-as-responsible-putin-ukraine-war-2022-05-04/

What does this mean? One ought to give concessions when force is threatened.

One ought to give concessions when force is threatened. — Metaphysician Undercover

But force was not threatened. Prior to Feb 24, the Russians were not threatening to attack Ukraine. On the contrary, they were saying they would NOT attack Ukraine.

Lula is gravely mistaken.

I sort of understand leftists like him, though, who feel uncomfortable with a unipolar world. They are nostalgic of the cold war, during which poor countries could play one superpower against another, and resent the resurgence of NATO and the continued dominance of the West. But Putin is never going to help poor Brazilians make ends meet. The idea that he represents a valid alternative to 'western liberalism' is simply disgusting.

the Putin trolls — Christoffer

There are differences between them, though. @Boethius is an FSB plant, no doubt in my mind about him, or he would not defend the bombing of civilians like he did. But @Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron.

Take a look at our glorious leader, Boris Johnson, the son of immigrants, but schooled at Eton and Oxford. Institutions established by the upper classes for their offspring. He sees himself above the law. — Punshhh

I think most politicians, and people with power and influence in general, see themselves above the law. Your "Norman" system doesn't really seem any worse than others. All or most systems have some form of social and economic hierarchy, including supposedly "egalitarian" ones like Marxism-Leninism.

Yes, Churchill probably considered himself "upper-class" even though he had no titles himself and he belonged to an impoverished upper-class family with a dodgy history and dependent on wealthy Americans like his mother's family. Like other British "aristocrats" at the time, his father was conveniently married to the daughter of Wall Street financier Leonard Jerome.

But the empire was largely built by middle- and working-class emigrants who went to the Americas and elsewhere in much the same way the Anglo-Saxons had emigrated from Germany to what had been the Roman province of Britannia.

Of course, it could be argued that British imperialism was started by professional robbers and pirates backed by the Crown, who raided other empires. But I think this tends to confirm the predatory nature of the British Empire when compared, for example, with the German Empire which was formed through the unification of German states, not through conquest of overseas territories.

America largely took over from Britain and continued the Anglo-Saxon or "Norman" imperialism by financial, economic, and military means. Organizations like NATO and the EU are manifestations of US imperialism a.k.a. Atlanticism or Transatlanticism.

But the torture did not take place only in these prisons. Russian police beat and abused Russian citizens for years, scalding some, raping others with broomsticks. A new word has appeared in Russian: "bottling", which means "raping with a bottle". You can imagine the level of violence in a society where this word appears. — Olivier5

I agree that this shouldn't happen in a civilized society. But the same things, or worse, are happening in NATO countries like Turkey, and in many other places like China, India, Pakistan, etc.

But Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron. — Olivier5

He's a self-proclaimed professor who does not believe in education, or he lies about that and is a liar and unreliable interlocutor. Either way, his treatment of knowledge and facts is so bad that there's no point arguing anything with him. Boethius is so apologetic that it's a parody, Apollodorus follows Russia's "Sweden and Finland are Nazis" narrative so he's part of that delusion, confusion or agenda as well. Bottom line is that any interaction is just pointless, answer one thing, and a whole mouthful of apologetic bullshit spews out, next to "touch Nato and you are monsters". Takes energy to not be sucked into the black hole of such intellectual collapse.

Boethius is so apologetic that it's a parody, Apollodorus follows Russia's "Sweden and Finland are Nazis" narrative so he's part of that delusion, confusion or agenda as well. — Christoffer

Boethius is the right stuff, the true professional Putin-paid troll here. He does it for the money, and his version is always the official Kremlin line. He's exactly like some guy adversing for Coca Cola and bashing Pepsi Cola: nothing personal, maybe he doesn't even drink soda, it's just a job.

I suspect that Apo is an amateur: he does it for the fun of antagonizing folks.

I agree that this shouldn't happen in a civilized society. But the same things, or worse, are happening in NATO countries like Turkey, and in many other places like China, India, Pakistan, etc. — Apollodorus

Yes, and it happened under the USSR and in Nazi Germany too.

It's happening now in Ukraine. Torture. Rape. Murder. That's what Russians do. Violence is the only language they will understand.

There are differences between them, though. Boethius is an FSB plant, no doubt in my mind about him, or he would not defend the bombing of civilians like he did. But @Isaac is just a confused, truth-abhorring cretin -- he is Gollum, not Sauron. — Olivier5

Where do I defend the bombing of civilians?

Pointed out a war crime (in the judicial sense and not internet-meme sense) requires a judicial process, is not "defending" bombing of civilians.

It just so happens that bombing civilians is not in itself a war crime according to our own Western definition; Western armies have bombed plenty of civilians since planes have been invented.

Likewise, pointing out Russia has nuclear weapons is not defending the use of nuclear weapons, just pointing out obvious facts and risks that should be taken into account.

Finally, pointing out that assuming just war justifies lying, that it therefore justifies lying about the reasons for the just war, is not defending one side or another.

My position, which has been consistent, is that my preference is peace and that only diplomacy will achieve that, for Ukrainians as much as for Russians or anyone else, and diplomacy requires understanding the other point of view.

Pointing out that the Western media repeating at face value obvious lies, like the ghost of Kiev, and then immediately praising Ukrainian information warfare and "myth making" the moment Kiev itself admits it's a lie, reduces the credibility of the Western media to zero -- that we're literally at the point of: "we're lying to you, but here why that's a good thing!" -- is not somehow incompatible with the idea that the Russians are also doing propaganda (which was already the object of a long discussion with people here refusing the idea that both Russia and Ukrainians and the US and EU are all engaged in propaganda, and whatever "seeds of truth" we can find and agree on, such as some Nazi's are in Ukraine, aren't "off limits" because it is inconvenient to the propaganda of one side or another).

Pointing out no one has actually made a coherent and complete argument explaining Ukrainian just war, that it is simply assumed by Ukrainian proponents, is not saying Russia has just cause either. As I mentioned: maybe neither has, maybe both have.

If just cause of previous wars are still debated to this day, sometimes many centuries if not millennia after they occurred, doubting the moral prescriptions of people who have zero hesitation to explain how they are lying as part of those moral prescriptions, and that's a good thing!, is pretty easy position to defend intellectually.

But, if you disagree, explain to me why it's right to believe Kiev's lies and also then immediately believe the truth that it was a lie when admitted but simultaneously believe it was right that they lied and to believe it was nevertheless true in a rewriting of my own memories that I was "co-creating" a necessary simplified myth all along.

Thanks for proving my point.

Boethius is the true professional Putin-paid troll here. — Olivier5

You do realise that this is a pretty pathetic cope for someone afraid of engaging with opposing view points?

Or do you really believe you've made some sound argument based on zero evidence?

Thanks for proving my point. — Olivier5

Proving what point?

You do realise that this is a pretty pathetic cope for someone afraid of engaging with opposing view points? — boethius

I fear not 'opposing view points', although mass murderers and their apologists are indeed creepy.

That you are a professional propagandist.

Ukraine's fighter pilots are vastly outnumbered by the Russians, and have become legendary - thanks in part to the story of an alleged flying ace called the "Ghost of Kyiv".

This hero is said to have downed as many as 40 enemy planes - an incredible feat in an arena where Russia controls the skies.

But now the Ukraine Air Force Command has warned on Facebook that the "Ghost of Kyiv is a superhero-legend whose character was created by Ukrainians!".

"We ask the Ukrainian community not to neglect the basic rules of information hygiene," the message said, urging people to "check the sources of information, before spreading it".

Earlier reports had named the ace as Major Stepan Tarabalka, 29. The authorities confirmed that he was killed in combat on 13 March and honoured with a Hero of Ukraine medal posthumously.

Now, the air force stresses that "Tarabalka is not 'Ghost of Kiev', and he did not hit 40 planes". — BBC

They've become legends! Thanks to lies that people believed, and their belief created the legend, but also didn't believe and actually co-wrote a new myth! ... Information Hygiene people! Because we care about the truth!

It's literally taking people for total fools a lot of this stuff.

You say that the articles, as written, are defensive and inclusive - but we've just established that NATO does not always act in accordance with those written articles, so that seems irrelevant. — Isaac

When it tried to "reinvent" itself. For some time, Russia wasn't a threat and the Cold War era thinking was genuinely thought to be totally obsolete. When Estonia copied the Finnish idea of area defense and reservist army, idea it was basically reprimanded by some in NATO for obsolete thinking. Then for NATO it seemed that it would be without a mission, and there the stupidities started to mount. Russia has by it's actions consistently kicked NATO back to it's original form and finally has gotten the Europeans to rearm and Germany to change course.

I don't think that NATO now has any desires of "out of the area" operations in Asia or Africa.

You say that the relationship between NATO and America is sometimes fraught, but the argument is not that NATO fawns over every word America says, merely that America has a lot of influence in NATO, so this seems irrelevant too. — Isaac

Naturally the US has a lot of influence in NATO, but note the historically peculiar situation where European countries genuinely want to keep the US in Europe. As the old political saying goes, "Keep the Americans in, keep the Russians out and keep the Germans under control."

If the forum troll has one thing right, it is that the US did promote European integration. Of course it was a small cadre of Europeans that sold the idea of European integration, but the form of NATO also helped this. Just compare this to CENTO or SEATO. The two member states of CENTO, Iran and Iraq, had both revolutions afterward and had a long bloody war. Obviously things didn't go to plan there. SEATO simply just broke up because there was no push for such integration as in Europe. And now the US allies are quite separate in Asia.


I think there's two major reason why the US has such a dominant position in the World, one is the status of the dollar and the other is NATO, which has made the European Great powers (apart from Russia, naturally) be happy and complacent about the leadership role of the US. Just being the biggest economy wouldn't make it.

That Russia considers itself to have a sphere of influence and will protect it militarily if provoked is all that is necessary to accept that NATO expansion into that sphere acts as provocation. — Isaac

That's the problem. It considers something and acts as it retake it's Empire and have a sphere of influence, even if countries aren't willing to go with it. (Authoritarian Belarus didn't have that trouble)

Whether life in that sphere is better or worse than in America's is, again, completely irrelevant to the argument. — Isaac

Is it???

I think it's quite relevant. My country is in a position that it has to decide which sphere to take.