I'm open to improvement. What do you suggest? Russian-Chinese hegemony, or perhaps free-for-all regional conflicts throughout the planet, either of which destroying and subjugating all weaker nations including yours? — magritte

People need to learn the worth of life and property, because they have clearly either forgotten that, or never learned it to begin with.

But, of course, this isn't likely going to happen, at least not anytime soon.

As things stand, people generally defend their egos, and they do so with their lives and property, and the lives and property of others.

Yay, better to die proud, than do something that would actually protect one's life and property!!

Now is a time when things are shifting. We're going to — there's going to be a New World Order out there, and we've got to lead it

Joe Biden talks about 'new world order' in Business Roundtable address - YouTube — Apollodorus

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing.

History is repeating itself. People watched on as Nazism grew, and did nothing. — baker

At least, our modern Hitler failed his Anschluss. That's something to celebrate.

At least, our modern Hitler failed his Anschluss. That's something to celebrate. — Olivier5

Indeed. (Of course the 2014 annexation of Crimea can be seen as the Anschluss part)

Well, the atmosphere is partly like the US of 1939-1941. Back then the German leader had those who "understood" him and saw the culprits somewhere else. What comes to mind is the anti-interventionist cause very popular back then before Pearl Harbour and the declaration of war by Hitler against the US.

In September 11th 1941 Charles Lindberg gave a speech in Des Moines, basically some weeks before the attack on Pearl Harbour is telling about these views:

It is now two years since this latest European war began. From that day in September, 1939, until the present moment, there has been an over-increasing effort to force the United States into the conflict.

That effort has been carried on by foreign interests, and by a small minority of our own people; but it has been so successful that, today, our country stands on the verge of war.

At this time, as the war is about to enter its third winter, it seems appropriate to review the circumstances that have led us to our present position. Why are we on the verge of war? Was it necessary for us to become so deeply involved? Who is responsible for changing our national policy from one of neutrality and independence to one of entanglement in European affairs?

Personally, I believe there is no better argument against our intervention than a study of the causes and developments of the present war. I have often said that if the true facts and issues were placed before the American people, there would be no danger of our involvement.

Here, I would like to point out to you a fundamental difference between the groups who advocate foreign war, and those who believe in an independent destiny for America.

If you will look back over the record, you will find that those of us who oppose intervention have constantly tried to clarify facts and issues; while the interventionists have tried to hide facts and confuse issues.

We ask you to read what we said last month, last year, and even before the war began. Our record is open and clear, and we are proud of it.

We have not led you on by subterfuge and propaganda. We have not resorted to steps short of anything, in order to take the American people where they did not want to go.

What we said before the elections, we say [illegible] and again, and again today. And we will not tell you tomorrow that it was just campaign oratory. Have you ever heard an interventionist, or a British agent, or a member of the administration in Washington ask you to go back and study a record of what they have said since the war started? Are their self-styled defenders of democracy willing to put the issue of war to a vote of our people? Do you find these crusaders for foreign freedom of speech, or the removal of censorship here in our own country?

The subterfuge and propaganda that exists in our country is obvious on every side. Tonight, I shall try to pierce through a portion of it, to the naked facts which lie beneath.

When this war started in Europe, it was clear that the American people were solidly opposed to entering it. Why shouldn't we be? We had the best defensive position in the world; we had a tradition of independence from Europe; and the one time we did take part in a European war left European problems unsolved, and debts to America unpaid.

National polls showed that when England and France declared war on Germany, in 1939, less than 10 percent of our population favored a similar course for America. But there were various groups of people, here and abroad, whose interests and beliefs necessitated the involvement of the United States in the war. I shall point out some of these groups tonight, and outline their methods of procedure. In doing this, I must speak with the utmost frankness, for in order to counteract their efforts, we must know exactly who they are.

The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.

Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.

I am speaking here only of war agitators, not of those sincere but misguided men and women who, confused by misinformation and frightened by propaganda, follow the lead of the war agitators.

As I have said, these war agitators comprise only a small minority of our people; but they control a tremendous influence. Against the determination of the American people to stay out of war, they have marshaled the power of their propaganda, their money, their patronage.

And of course in hindsight, what he tells about the Jewish doesn't look good now at all:

The second major group I mentioned is the Jewish.

It is not difficult to understand why Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi Germany. The persecution they suffered in Germany would be sufficient to make bitter enemies of any race.

No person with a sense of the dignity of mankind can condone the persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But no person of honesty and vision can look on their pro-war policy here today without seeing the dangers involved in such a policy both for us and for them. Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish groups in this country should be opposing it in every possible way for they will be among the first to feel its consequences.

Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength. History shows that it cannot survive war and devastations. A few far-sighted Jewish people realize this and stand opposed to intervention. But the majority still do not.

Their greatest danger to this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government.

I am not attacking either the Jewish or the British people. Both races, I admire. But I am saying that the leaders of both the British and the Jewish races, for reasons which are as understandable from their viewpoint as they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons which are not American, wish to involve us in the war.

We cannot blame them for looking out for what they believe to be their own interests, but we also must look out for ours. We cannot allow the natural passions and prejudices of other peoples to lead our country to destruction.

After Hitler declared war against the US, Charles Lindbergh fell to be a persona-non-grata. No matter that he did participate as a fighter pilot in WW2 in the Pacific Theatre, his reputation was quite tarnished.

But the above just shows how difficult it was to be openly against nazism prior and even after the war had started. And how much "opposing nazism" was that bad foreign policy.

Are you joking, or some kind of closet racist?

Of course the 2014 annexation of Crimea can be seen as the Anschluss part — ssu

Good point.

https://youtu.be/qciVozNtCDM
Professor Mearsheimer has reiterated his known perspective on the Russo-Ukrainian war. After his presentation, an interesting discussion encompassed a spectrum of the most significant views and positions. In the end, to defend the narrative of blaming NATO and the US actions as the primary cause of the war, Mearsheimer was forced to lean on his academic
competence and reputation. Yet, remarkably, no one tried to dispute the professor’s concluding remarks regarding the possible devastating scenarios and the affiliated risks.

Nobel peace prize auctioned by Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov, editor-in-chief of Novaya Gazeta, raises record $103.5m for Ukrainian child refugees

Muratov, who was awarded the gold medal in October 2021, said proceeds would go to Unicef to help children displaced by Ukraine war.

Tue 21 Jun 2022 01.27 BST

The Nobel Peace Prize that Russian journalist Dmitry Muratov was auctioning off to raise money for Ukrainian child refugees has sold for $103.5m (£84.5m), shattering the record for a Nobel.

“I was hoping that there was going to be an enormous amount of solidarity,” Muratov said after the sale. “But I was not expecting this to be such a huge amount.”

Previously, the most ever paid for a Nobel prize medal was in 2014, when James Watson, whose co-discovery of the structure of DNA earned him a Nobel prize in 1962, sold his medal for $4.76m. Three years later, the family of his co-recipient, Francis Crick, received $2.27m in bidding run by Heritage Auctions, the same company that auctioned off Muratov’s medal on Monday, World Refugee Day.

Muratov, who was awarded the gold medal in October 2021, helped found the independent Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta and was the publication’s editor-in-chief when it shut down in March amid the Kremlin’s clampdown on journalists and public dissent in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

It was Muratov’s idea to auction off his prize, having already announced he was donating the accompanying $500,000 cash award to charity. The idea of the donation, he said, “is to give the children refugees a chance for a future”

Muratov has said the proceeds will go directly to Unicef in its efforts to help children displaced by the war in Ukraine. Melted down, the 175 grams of 23-karat gold contained in Muratov’s medal would be worth about $10,000.

better to die proud — baker

:brow:

Good one!

The world is staring down the barrel of a gun! :snicker:

I'm going to bed...alone...as usual. Don't wake me up unless you have some good news! Rip Van Winkle :yawn:

What are the forum's thoughts about Ukrainian membership to the European Union, which seems to be inching ever closer?

If Ukraine becomes a member of the European Union while it is still at war with Russia, this would seem to bring war between NATO and Russia closer. Yet, NATO is a defensive alliance and the war in Ukraine is not a basis for invoking Article 5 as long as no NATO countries are directly attacked.

Is Ukraine becoming part of the EU realistic? Will it change anything? How likely is military intervention and thus escalation in Ukraine by NATO or European countries?

Is Ukraine becoming part of the EU realistic? — Tzeentch

It will take some time, like a few years. At worst a few decades.

People need to learn the worth of life and property — baker

Miles to go before I sleep

See :point: ...

And more today from Slavoj (that famously neoliberal / imperial apologist) Žižek:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jun/21/pacificsm-is-the-wrong-response-to-the-war-in-ukraine

I sometimes find him entertaining. But he is not a serious scholar, there are many instances of pretty BAD scholarship in his work, with very sloppy reasoning, which should put one on guard.

Interesting that in the subtitle, "We need a stronger nato", is very badly argued.

I don't know. I don't think nuclear annihilation is worth it, even if it may come off as cowardly.

One of his worst articles in a long while.

Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for that essay by the only Hegelian who makes sense.

Interesting that in the subtitle, "We need a stronger nato", is not reflected in the article as such. — Manuel

:roll:

"...but a moment of the brutal attempt to change our entire geopolitical situation. The true target of the war is the dismantlement of the European unity advocated not only by the US conservatives and Russia but also by the European extreme right and left – at this point, in France, Melenchon meets Le Pen."

What the hell is he talking about?



Yeah, saw my mistake and changed it right away. It is a misleading subtitle nonetheless.

The article advocates European independence, in opposition to both Russian imperialism and US colonialism.

:up:

Which is all very good. But who supplies most of the weapons in NATO? Who controls the vast majority of budget in NATO? It's not Europe. This article does not show how Europe should proceed to become "autocratic".

One thing is to follow the remarks made by Merkel, that Europe should have it's own defense and foreign policy. That makes sense.

But that's not what Europe is doing, it's simply expanding US controlled NATO, by rendering countries with less control of whatever foreign policy they had.

. But who supplies most of the weapons in NATO? Who controls the vast majority of budget in NATO? It's not Europe. — Manuel

That's rather the point. Sorry, independence rather than autocracy. poor choice of words. Zezek is pointing out that the left gains by global cooperation, and so must be in favour of ejecting Russia from Ukraine, while a the same time rejecting US control of NATO.

Pretty much what you seem to be advocating.

US support for Ukraine could easily drop to nothing in 2024. I'm guessing Europe would follow, for the most part.

Europe definitely needs to have its own foreign policy and defense.

The point, so far as the US is concerned, is to weaken Russia as much as possible, paying for it with Ukrainian lives, not just dollars.

Nevertheless, this might well be a game of who "blinks" first. Either there is a miscalculation and Russia goes crazy, or it exhausts itself and demolishes all of Ukraine and decides to leave. It's not a good gamble.

But you are correct. The US (nor any major country, let's be honest) cared about Ukraine, until this war happened. Now they are getting the support victims should get.

But as soon as the objectives are completed, I don't think the US (meaning the military and the high echelons of power) will care much about Ukraine.

Hope I'm wrong.

The point, so far as the US is concerned, is to weaken Russia as much as possible, paying for it with Ukrainian lives, not just dollars. — Manuel

I think that more so than most wars in recent history, this war is about personalities more than about states.

It's Zelensky backed by Biden against Putin. Subtract Biden, and it's just Zelensky versus Putin with a disorganized world watching from the sidelines.

Biden doesn't want a weak Russia. He wants regime change. That's blatantly obvious. And blaming the US for the deaths of Ukrainians is despicable in my opinion.

If Republicans take the presidency in 2024, they will likely withdraw support from Ukraine.

Not just the US, if that makes you feel better, Europe too. Send as many weapons as possible, care virtually nothing about diplomatic negotiations (minus France, and initially, Germany) and let the war continue as long as possible.

With the Republicans, it's a gamble. If Trump wins again, maybe? Then again, you've surely seen comments by members of the House saying to "call Putin's bluff". Yeah, ok. Neither party is good here at all.

If they cared about Ukrainian lives prior to the war, they would have agreed to implement the MINSK II agreements, and avoid all of this, which has been warned about for decades now, never mind Putin.

It is despicable, but it is also a fact. That's how power works.

Not just the US, if that makes you feel better, Europe too. Send as many weapons as possible, care virtually nothing about diplomatic negotiations (minus France, and initially, Germany) and let the war continue as long as possible — Manuel

No doubt support for Ukraine is prolonging the war, but the primary cause of its duration is Putin. The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin.

It is despicable, but it is also a fact. — Manuel

That the US is responsible for Ukrainian deaths? I disagree. I believe the cause is Putin.

Well written, thanks. The observation that Americans laugh about their crimes in Iraq is a good point; also the one on what a return of Trump would mean.

The reason there have been no negotiations is again, Putin. — Tate

Since before 2014 the Russian red line has been that Ukraine must stay neutral, independent and demilitarized.

In your view, have the United States and the European Union have been willing to accept this compromise?

In your view, have the United States and the European Union have been willing to accept this compromise? — Tzeentch

I'm not sure why you call it a compromise, but the answer is no.