Or likely that fertilizer plants in Africa would be dangerous competitors to European fertilizer plants. — ssu

Of course. EU's generosity has its limits. They won't fund the growth of foreign firms that would become competitors to their own industries.

Interestingly, Morocco is set to consolidate its position on the fertilizer market in Africa. Building on their natural phosphate deposits they are exporting to sub-saharian Africa but also building fertilizer plants there, and even contributing to agronomic research and extension about optimal fertilizer dosages etc.

See this analysis (pardon the analyst jargony phrases à la 'nexus weaponization' and his pro-western slant -- the data appears correct): https://www.mei.edu/publications/morocco-counters-russias-weaponization-food-energy-nexus

The Baltic states are NATO members but NATO isn't committed to defending them? — Tate

Yes. See @ssu more detailed exposition of the issue above.

My understanding is that defending them ie stopping a conventional Russian attack on them would be next to impossible. Not enough strategic depth, it's too narrow.

And if they try to defend themselves, chances are their cities will be flattened like Mariupol. The current RF preferred tactic as seen in Ukraine is to seek the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military.

It basically is the question just how credible is the deterrence of NATO in the end. Or the US. We do have to remember that CENTO or SEATO don't anymore exist.

Now, in the case of Estonia, they've likely noticed that not all US politicians would come to their help. From some years ago:



Hopefully the current dispute with Lithuania and Russia don't grow, but we'll see what the Russian response will be.

Interestingly, Morocco is set to consolidate its position on the fertilizer market in Africa. Building on their natural phosphate deposits they are exporting to sub-saharian Africa but also building fertilizer plants there, and even contributing to agronomic research and extension about optimal fertilizer dosages etc. — Olivier5

I think Morocco has three quarters of the reserves of phosphate rock in the world, so it's no wonder. Yet the real issue is to have a robust efficient and up-to-date chemical industry. And that, as is the problem for many Third World countries, isn't so easy to create.

The current RF preferred tactic as seen in Ukraine is to seek the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military. — Olivier5

Pundits have commented that wholesale destruction is what they did in Syria. It's the only thing that works for them.

NATO wouldn't engage Russia in a nuclear conflict over the Balkan states, therefore being in NATO is meaningless for them. Can they afford a nuclear arsenal and a few missiles?

Yet the real issue is to have a robust efficient and up-to-date chemical industry. And that, as is the problem for many Third World countries, isn't so easy to create. — ssu

Morocco has got that infrastructure with their Office Chérifien des Phosphates, OCP. They are working with Nigeria and others to expand southward. The development of African agriculture is in their strategic interest.

the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military.
— Olivier5

Pundits have commented that wholesale destruction is what they did in Syria. It's the only thing that works for them. — Tate

I've read an oped from an obscure French philosopher a few days ago, about the streak of nihilism pervading through modern Russian history. I thought the case was a bit too dark and overblown, but now it resonates.

Here it is, for what it's worth:
---------


The most striking thing about the Ukrainian conflict is the strategy adopted by the Russians. It is characterized by a deliberate intention of annihilation, of systematic and radical destruction. Surely all wars involve damage to the enemy; but they are most often linked to military objectives.

In the case of the Russian aggression, one has the impression of an enterprise of total annihilation of the territory to be conquered, civilians and soldiers, men, buildings and things. Mariupol, Bucha and many other martyred cities tragically illustrate this desire. As has often been pointed out, this is a strategy already adopted in Chechnya and Syria.

Usually, the conqueror aims to appropriate the resources of the attacked country, which leads him to preserve them as much as possible, in his own interest. Here, on the other hand, one has the feeling that the expected gain does not matter at all. Destruction is not a means but an end in itself; and moreover it applies to the aggressor as much as to the attacked.

Nihilistic thinking as a principle of war

The damage caused to Russia by the war (effects of sanctions, withdrawal of foreign investors, accession to NATO of hitherto neutral countries, strengthening of European unity and defense, etc.) is far greater than the potential benefit of conquering the Donbass. But that damage, great as it is, doesn't seem to matter.

How to explain such an attitude? One word imposes itself on the spectacle of this militarily irrational, economically aberrant, politically catastrophic war: nihilism. We know that this concept was born in Russia in the 1860s; and it is often associated with a marginal movement of opposition to the Tsarist regime, which quickly disappeared in favor of the Marxist-Leninist protest that would lead to the October 1917 revolution.

But this representation is erroneous. The writer Ivan Turgenev (1818-1883), in Fathers and Sons , defines the nihilist as someone “who does not want to recognize anything” , “who does not respect anything” and “does not bow before any authority” . The writer-philosopher Alexandre Herzen (1812-1870), in an article from 1869, sees in it “a spirit of critical purification” ; he associates the phenomenon of nihilism with the Russian mentality as such: "Nihilism is the natural, legitimate, historical fruit of this negative attitude towards life which Russian thought and Russian art had adopted from its first steps after Peter the Great. He adds :“This negation must finally lead to the negation of oneself."

Nihilism in the nature of the Russian soul

The analysis will be taken up by Fiodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881), who writes, speaking of the Russians: “We are all nihilists. The philosopher Nicolas Berdiaev (1874-1948), a century later, confirms it: nihilism had its source in the Russian soul and in the nature of the pro-Slavic faith. It was “the photographic negative of Russian apocalyptic sentiment”.

Albert Camus (1913-1960), in L'Homme révolté , clarifies its contours. He detects there “the feeling, which we will find even in Bakunin and the revolutionary socialists of 1905, that suffering is regenerative”. The literary critic Vissarion Bielinski (1811-1848), one of the representatives of this movement, affirms that it is necessary to destroy reality to affirm what one is: “Negation is my God. »

One gives to nihilism, writes Camus, “the intransigence and passion of faith” . This is why “the struggle against creation will be merciless and without morality; the only salvation is in extermination”. According to political theorist Mikhail Bakunin (1814-1876), “the passion for destruction is a creative passion”. Sergei Nechayev (1847-1882), his companion, “pushed the coherence of nihilism as far as possible”: henceforth “violence will be turned against everyone in the service of an abstract idea” ; the leaders of the revolution must destroy not only the class enemies, but also their own militants, if they deviate from the imposed line.

An irrational approach ready for all sacrifices

Bakunin contributed as much as Marx to the Leninist doctrine – and therefore to the Soviet ideology with which Putin is imbued. Through this filiation, nihilism continues to inspire the current leaders of Russia. From nihilism to communism, and from the latter to pan-Slavism which motivates the invasion of Ukraine, it is the same abstract idea which justifies a desire for "purifying" destruction, the bias of a clean slate, of apocalypse as a political and religious ideal, of nothingness set up as a principle of action.

This is why the nuclear threat agitated by the Russian leaders should not be taken lightly. From the annihilation of the other to the universal annihilation which implies the annihilation of oneself, the border is thin. Nihilism, Camus concludes, "closely intertwined with the movement of a fallen religion, ends in terrorism". Among all the heirs of nihilism, "the taste for sacrifice coincides with the attraction of death"; “Murder is identified with suicide” .

How to deal with such an ideology? The answer is not evident. But we must in any case avoid considering Putin and his henchmen as rational conquerors, who would calculate the benefits and the costs of an aggression, like Hitler. There is a relationship between the nihilistic ideology that marked Russia in the 19th century and this way of waging war. Like any faith, it is ready for all sacrifices, including its own.

It is akin to jihadist radicalism, with which it shares many modes of action and thought. The only difference between one and the other is a difference of scale: Putin's terrorism is state terrorism, and of a state which has a nuclear arsenal which could cause the annihilation of humanity. Never before have we been faced with such a situation. In this sense, the Ukrainian war is an absolute novelty in history.

François Galichet , honorary professor at the University of Strasbourg
https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2022/06/23/ukraine-il-y-a-une-filiation-entre-l-ideologie-nihiliste-qui-a-marque-la-russie-au-xixe-siecle-et-cette-facon-de-mener-la-guerre_6131725_3232.html

Fascinating read. I was just thinking the other day that a group of Americans is presently prepared at a moment's notice to bomb Russia to dust while sending up anti-missile missiles over Canada. 24 hours a day, they're waiting.

Sounds like a bunch of inflammatory nonsense meant to vilify the political enemy.

What proof do you have that Russia is bent on "annihilation"?

What proof do you have that Russia is bent on "annihilation"? — Tzeentch

Read the news. 90% of the buildings in Sievierodonetsk have been destroyed by the Russians.

That's not proof.

First, you'll need to provide something other than "read the news" to support your claim that 90% of buildings have been destroyed. The pictures I've seen of Severodonetsk show that claim is almost certainly objectively false, since the majority of buildings are still standing.

Second, you may then make your case for "annihilation" being the goal, for example by showing how it is different from other similar wars that have been fought.

And likely what you'll find is that the destruction seen in Ukraine is the destruction seen anywhere where there is war, and that this claim of "annihilation" is just, as I said, inflammatory garbage.

:yawn:

Try Twitter if substantiating your claims and opinions is so unappealing to you.

Try Twitter if substantiating your claims and opinions is so unappealing to you. — Tzeentch

I just don't know you, man. I have no stake in what you think about Russia's military practices. Think whatever you please.

Sounds like a bunch of inflamatory nonsense meant to vilify the political enemy. — Tzeentch

TBH, that was my first reaction. Now i think there's indeed an undercurrent of nihilism there, in the cultural background, though it does not follow that the Putin clique is irrational. The rationality of it is that, when people believe you're a mean nihilist intent on destroying the world, they fear you more.

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

Having an ego isn’t necessarily a problem any more than having a brain or hands and feet is a problem.
The problem is an ego that has been rendered dysfunctional or defective through exposure to miseducation, disinformation, and propaganda.

Such an ego undergoes a process of stultification and zombification and is no longer an ego that forms a harmonious part of yourself, but a foreign body that is used by external agents to remote-control you.

Denying history amounts to being in denial and being in denial means to exclude oneself from an aspect of reality that would otherwise give you a more balanced perception of what’s going on.

The whole purpose of propaganda is to distort reality and once a person’s perception of reality has been distorted, he or she becomes vulnerable to psychological manipulation.

In addition to disinformation, emotions play a key role in the stultification and zombification process. As people often act on emotional impulse instead of rational thought, propaganda aims to stir up emotions, such as anger and hatred, that can be channeled toward forms of behavior desired by the authors of the propaganda.

This is why Plato says that the emotional part of man must be ruled by the reasoning part, and not the other way round. In turn, reason must be guided by wisdom (or common sense) and justice.

However, you can only be truly wise and just when you know the facts. Knowing the facts is of paramount importance. And that includes history. Everything that exists in this world, unless it has inexplicably appeared out of the blue, has a history. Individual humans have a history, and so do groups of individuals or nations.

Knowledge of history is absolutely necessary especially when we try to form an opinion of territorial disputes like the Ukraine case, which essentially, is about territory. The whole conflict really boils down to both US-NATO and Russia claiming Ukraine as “their” territory.

Given that Ukraine and Russia used to be one country, whereas America is a non-European, and arguably, anti-European foreign power, history is on Russia’s side IMO.

And this is precisely why the pro-NATO camp are so allergic to history, because it exposes inconvenient facts that force Natoists to admit that they may not be quite as right as they think they are. Hence they’re in denial and this disqualifies them from being objective debaters.

But it’s still instructive to see what strategies and tactics they’re deploying as part of their defense mechanism …. :smile:

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

Those who have read Plato understand that the secret in life is to know about the past without being stuck in the past. People who’re stuck in the past forget that National Socialism or Nazism has long mutated beyond recognition.

Classical Nazism (or something close to it) no longer exists except in places like China. And even there it is applied under the guise of Marxist-Leninist state capitalism.

In most places, for example, in America, Nazism (of which Natoism is a manifestation) is disguised as “liberal capitalism” and promoted under the false flag of “democracy and freedom”. But a growing number of people are beginning to realize that so-called “liberalism” is really only the thin end of the illiberal wedge that leads to natural resources, the economy, finance, culture, and information being monopolized by a few top players who together form the apex of the ruling class.

In this context, we can see some interesting developments in the US:

The Texas Republican Party just voted 'overwhelmingly' to reject the legitimacy of Biden's 2020 election win – Business Insider

Poll: Biden disapproval hits new high as more Americans say they would vote for Trump

And in Europe:

Voices: Macron’s defeat doesn’t only weaken France – it has serious implications for Europe - Independent

Ancient Egypt was a great civilization that was eventually defeated after staying strong for thousands of years. America isn’t even two and a half centuries old, and isn’t a great civilization. There is no way it will last very long. It has done everything it could to weaken Europe and other continents and now they are striking back.

In other words, once again, America has screwed up and this time like never before. So, yeah, there will be a new world order pretty soon, but not of the kind that senile old men like Biden imagine ….

The current RF preferred tactic as seen in Ukraine is to seek the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians and military. — Olivier5

Nonsense. If Russia wanted “the complete annihilation of the enemy's civilians”, it would have done so by now. So far, only a few thousand got killed - out of forty million!

Plus, you seem to forget that the Ukrainians were given the choice to surrender. Which, incidentally, raises the question of why they haven’t done so, given that razed cities and villages is the only alternative.

It’s understandable that the Ukrainians want to defend their country, but how are they “defending” it if it gets totally destroyed – and, possibly, still gets taken over either wholly or partly???

So, this Zelensky guy and his government just don’t make any sense.

On top of it, shameless Zelensky is now asking British festival-goers to fund his war!

Volodymyr Zelensky makes surprise appearance at Glastonbury - The Telegraph

Where have all the zillions of dollars gone that he got from America? And how much of that mountain of cash winds up in the Swiss (and Israeli) accounts of oligarchs like Kolomoisky that helped Zelensky to come to power?

Really?

HOW ABOUT CRIMEA? — ssu

Excuses were - Russian-speaking population, oppression of language, NATO risk to warm-water port access.

How do you not know that?

Anyway, I think you should put the trust in Stalinist rhetoric to a level where it belongs. — ssu

Who said anything about trust. We're talking about excuses. The fact is that invasions have never, ever, taken place without an excuse. Several, most of the time. The Russian Federation hasn't invented anywhere, ever where it's only stated reason has been "we want that land".

in Soviet (Russian) history Finland attacked Soviet Union in 1939 and the Soviet Union attempted to liberate the Finnish proletariat, and saw as the legal representative of Finland the Finnish Democratic Republic, which then likely would have joined the Union of Soviet Republics just like Baltic States. — ssu

Ha! Take a country's history all the way back to 1939 and the example of naked land-grabbing you come up with is still Russia. They really have become bogeyman number one haven't they? Do you recall any other land grabs by any other countries in 1939? anything spring to mind?

Of course. EU's generosity has its limits. — Olivier5

@Benkei

I realise you were just making a point, but, in a continued vein, it's this^ that I've discovered anew, just from this thread. There's a rhetorical technique that I hadn't been aware of before. When one is confronted with pragmatism "we can stop this war by giving in to pragmatic demands" - the counterargument is a moral one "It wouldn't be right". When moral arguments are raised "The EU ought to care about the ability of African countries to feed themselves", the response switches to pragmatism "of course, they're not going to do that are they?"

The effect is that any position can appear to have been countered. Play the pragmatist, you get moral idealism barely short of a Hollywood movie, play the moralist and you get cold dispassionate assessment of history. Nothing gets resolved because the frame of analysis keeps changing, so arguments can be dodged infinitely.

Anyway, just thought I'd add that to your earlier insight.

Excuses were - Russian-speaking population, oppression of language, NATO risk to warm-water port access. — Isaac

Your again wrong, Isaac. With Crimea, it was viewed as an inseparable part of Russia, which had no right to be part of Ukraine. Putin stated it quite clearly.

From his speech in 2014:

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a federal city. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

So no, excuses weren't supporting separatists autonomy', or 'repelling NATO', or 'supporting legitimate governments against foreign intervention',... and so on. Something to be an inseparable part of Russia makes it quite clear. Or perhaps you haven't listened to Apollodorus, who has promoted the idea that Russia has the most justification for Crimea.

Ha! Take a country's history all the way back to 1939 and the example of naked land-grabbing you come up with is still Russia. They really have become bogeyman number one haven't they? Do you recall any other land grabs by any other countries in 1939? anything spring to mind? — Isaac

Oh! You really think that the Winter War was an example of naked land-grabbing? But somehow you do not notice the totally similar playbook, do you?

Likely Stalin would have declared the Soviet Army peacekeepers just coming to help the Democratic Republic of Finland in a "special military operation", if that would have been the rhetoric of the time. For the Soviet soldiers it was promoted as a parade march to liberate the Finnish workers from their evil capitalist controllers. And Finnish Democratic Republic was just like the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. This has been played from the same playbook in Georgia, Moldova and now in Ukraine. Just with different outcomes.

Your again wrong, Isaac. With Crimea, it was viewed as an inseparable part of Russia, which had no right to be part of Ukraine. Putin stated it quite clearly. — ssu

The fist fucking paragraph of the speech.

A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international law norms.

More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia.

Come on! You're becoming ridiculous.

Come on! You're becoming ridiculous. — Isaac

The legality of the "full compliance with democratic procedures and international law norms" seems quite in line with the Stalinist rhetoric during the Winter War. And with Stalinist rhetoric in general:

The referendum unsurprisingly produced a Soviet-style result: 97 percent allegedly voted to join Russia with a turnout of 83 percent. A true referendum, fairly conducted, might have shown a significant number of Crimean voters in favor of joining Russia. Some 60 percent were ethnic Russians, and many might have concluded their economic situation would be better as a part Russia.

It was not, however, a fair referendum. It was conducted in polling places under armed guard, with no credible international observers, and with Russian journalists reporting that they had been allowed to vote. Two months later, a member of Putin’s Human Rights Council let slip that turnout had been more like 30 percent, with only half voting to join Russia.

(See here)

Besides, many also were extremely happy when the Sudetenland was taken from Czechoslovakia also...a perfect example of similar "justified" actions?

a perfect example of similar "justified" actions? — ssu

Who said anything about "justified". Where did I even mention the word?

excuses — Isaac

Excuses — Isaac

note 'excuse' not 'reason' — Isaac

excuses — Isaac

excuses — Isaac

excuse — Isaac

...

Does it translate into something else in Finnish?

My point was that Crimea being (historically, ethnically etc) part of Russia was very important in the rhetoric/excuses.

But enough of this. said the obvious about this whole issue. So let's move on.

Excuses are easy to find.

My point was that Crimea being (historically, ethnically etc) part of Russia was very important in the rhetoric/excuses. — ssu

Why would you be making such an irrelevant point when the argument was that since excuses seem a necessary precursor to invasion, we ought not have been deliberately and knowingly providing them.

↪jorndoe
said the obvious about this whole issue. — ssu

What? That non-membership of NATO isn't the only criteria for peace? The Russians have been pretty clear on that from the start, so I can't see why this is news. Non-NATO, Donbas, Crimea. These have been the positions form the start. When all three are offered and the war continues, then @jorndoe might have a point about these excuses not being useful to us, but until then. What was he expecting? If it takes the unlocking of three bolts to open a door, on is hardly surprised when, after unlocking just one, the door still won't budge.

, too naïve. It's a land-grab (attempt).
The Ukrainians are sitting ducks (no NATO), something Putin would know as well as anyone.

too naïve. It's a land-grab (attempt). — jorndoe

Is that supposed to be an argument? Or did you think I'd forgotten what your opinion was?

Excuses were - Russian-speaking population, oppression of language, NATO risk to warm-water port access. — Isaac

Who said anything about "justified". Where did I even mention the word? — Isaac

what is the difference between excuse and justification to you as applied to the Russian annexation of Crimea?

what is the difference between excuse and justification to you as applied to the Russian annexation of Crimea? — neomac

A justification (apart from just the technical terminology of being legal), I consider to reflect a genuine motivation. An excuse is just a wash of justification-like reasoning which do not represent actual motives.

The point I'm making is that whether Putin wants to annex Crimea, Ukraine (or Moldova, or Lithuania...) is entirely irrelevant to us. What matters is whether he's actually going to try.

The historical record is absolutely clear that the difference between the two is the availability of a legitimate sounding excuse.

So if we want to limit the horrors of war, don't provide excuses to tyrants.

The exact opposite of the west's approach thus far.

Standard EU politics [CW: dead bodies]

The point I'm making is that whether Putin wants to annex Crimea, Ukraine (or Moldova, or Lithuania...) is entirely irrelevant to us. — Isaac

Or irrelevant to you. Then why on Earth continue this debate?

What matters is whether he's actually going to try. — Isaac

Well, in the case of Crimea and now in Donbas, I think this should be clear even to you.

So if we want to limit the horrors of war, don't provide excuses to tyrants. — Isaac

Oh that would make him change his mind? If we didn't give him excuses?

I think it's quite obvious that Putin had excuses / justifications / reasons to invade Ukraine irrelevant to NATO / EU / The West.

So if we want to limit the horrors of war, don't provide excuses to tyrants. — Isaac

Oh that would make him change his mind? — ssu

Yes. The historical record is absolutely clear on this. Without legitimate-sounding excuses, invasions do not occur. Haven't done for decades.

I think it's quite obvious that Putin had excuses / justifications / reasons to invade Ukraine irrelevant to NATO / EU / The West. — ssu

So if you think a known mass murderer has a gun, it's OK to sell him another? After all, he's already got a gun, so no harm making a profit out of his murderous intent, yes?