Kremlin rhetoric regarding NATO expansion has been all over the place. To start with, NATO expansion was presented to the West as the main excuse for going to war. Putin's war ultimatum issued in the run-up to the Ukraine invasion demanded the roll-back of NATO to the Soviet-era status quo, and when these impossible demands were not accepted, that was given as a casus belli in his war speech. Later, when Finland and Sweden announced their intention to join NATO, while Russia's war against Ukraine was floundering, Putin sheepishly brushed that aside as nothing to worry about. All that hysterical rhetoric about NATO missile flight time was already forgotten. Now they aren't sure how to react. Peskov mumbles: oh noes, NATO expansion not good. Putin just pouts.

I remember Putin's shrug. The rhetoric at the time was to emphasize that Finland was an independent country that could join clubs as they wish while Ukraine was an internal component being stolen from Russia. That seems like a long time ago after months of attritional warfare.

The latest Russian threats are directed to what and whether new elements are brought into Finland on account of the change. I have no idea what is being considered in that regard.

Obviously this has blown up in the Russian's face. The best they can hope for now is a peace settlement where they take some of Ukraine's land. They will have wrecked their military, destroyed a neighboring country, ruined their international relations, killed hundreds of thousands of people (including over 100,000 dead Russian soldiers), and strengthened and enlarged NATO to expand their empire a tiny bit.

Now that the rubber is hitting the road, we will discover the truth. Personally, I doubt we in the western world can actually give up our exceptionalism and actually share power in a multipolar world of equals. The habit of patronising people from China, Africa, Middle East and Russia is at least 500 years old. It is entirely alien for us to allow other states to determine their own destiny without interference.

For all our outrage at anything resembling racism - which we are now incapable of defining - when push comes to shove, it seems we would sooner blow the whole earth to kingdom come before we ever forgo our privilege to decide the "rules based international order." Like the proverbial reprobate catholic, we are happy to confess our past sins and even self flagellate ourselves, provided that outside the confessional we can continue do exactly what we have always done.

Wild as it might sound, I'm inclined to think that this psychology - outlined above - far better explains current events, whether that be the Ukraine War, Taiwan, the sanctions against Russia, Covid, Trump hate, Assange's imprisonment, woke culture or even the hysteria around global warming. We are a culture whose ethics is in terminal decline. Collectively, the Western World (the USA and us satellites) make up less than 15% of the world's population and increasingly as the rest of the world has become comparatively more powerful, they've had enough of our mendacious Hollywood nonsense.

I don't know the truth, but I do know when I'm being lied to. And right now and for sometime, everything I read or watch is little more than click bait featuring cartoon scripts designed to create adolescent spats. All the while those in power - government or oligarchs - can go on doing whatever crazy thing takes their fancy whilst the public watches on confused, guilt ridden, self flagellating and hopelessly acquiescent.

, not exactly; could be whoever. It just so happens that it was Putin who instigated the Ukrainians' predicament — invasion, bombings, re-enculturation efforts, bullshitting, shamming, ..., continuing to generate hate among the defenders — and he might well also be the one individual that can end the crap today (doesn't even have to give reasons, just send the invaders home, and not to Finland, please). That by itself warrants some attention at least. It's become up to Putin/Russia to dispel the vaguely sinister undertones.

Again (again), ? Already mentioned the thread; I ain't your secretary, have daytime job, life outside the forums. Since you apparently haven't read, you could always hit up google on the Russian down spiral, not a democracy, long story, Ukrainian efforts to join democratic organizations, transparency, hitting on corruption (all the while being bombed into PTSD or worse, and the Kremlin feasting on caviar). Usual directional stuff.

Anyway, in the interest of not hiding anything, here's a different report:

Ukrainian soldier pleads 'partly guilty' at Russia's first war crime trial
^{— Jake Cordell, Kevin Liffey · Reuters · Apr 4, 2023}

Brief...

Russia May Finance Continued War in Ukraine Via ‘External Financial Support’ From ‘Friendly’ States
^{— Tony Spitz · Veuer · Apr 5, 2023 · 1m:7s}

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8jsobj

Personally, I doubt we in the western world can actually give up our exceptionalism and actually share power in a multipolar world of equals. The habit of patronising people from China, Africa, Middle East and Russia is at least 500 years old. It is entirely alien for us to allow other states to determine their own destiny without interference — yebiga

This seems to imply that if only "the West" would stop meddling, wed have a stable world of equals. If history is any guide, international relations don't naturally tend towards equality. Rather, there's always imperial programs. I would not assume the one replacing the "rules based international order" is any less patronising.

Again (again), ↪Isaac
? Already mentioned the thread; I ain't your secretary, have daytime job, life outside the forums. Since you apparently haven't read, you could always hit up google — jorndoe

Yeah. Vague hand-waiving in the direction of Google doesn't count as an argument. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you Google it.

As mentioned by , public comments from Russian officials have been all over...

the Russian Federation will have to respond with military-technical, as well as other measures in order to address national security threats arising from Finland joining NATO
[...]
This constitutes a major shift for Northern Europe, which used to be one of the most stable regions in the world — Foreign Ministry Statement on Finland completing the process to join NATO · Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia · Apr 4, 2023

Secretary Antony J. Blinken and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg Before Their Meeting
^{— US Department of State · Apr 4, 2023}

And I’m tempted to say this is maybe the one thing we can thank Mr. Putin for, because he, once again here, has precipitated something he claims to want to prevent — Antony Blinken

FYI, an older but pertinent analysis:

Russia’s land grabs in Ukraine could break the international order
^{— Paul Hensel, Sara Mitchell, Andrew Owsiak, Krista Wiegand · The Washington Post · Mar 4, 2022}

Our research shows that irredentist conflicts — waged with the purported goal of capturing territory to incorporate ethnic kin — are frequently violent. Russia’s recent actions toward Ukraine are similar to the tactics it used in Georgia and Moldova to support separatist claims.
[...]
The average country was involved in 2.5 territorial conflicts around World War I but participates in less than 0.5 today — and many conflicts involve small islands rather than large territories. In the same time period, conflict scholars saw reductions in the average number of countries participating in war. The mean number of countries fighting interstate wars declined from five in 1950 to less than 0.5 in 2007.

Anyway, Ukraine, Finland, and Sweden have chosen. (And Moldova is nervous.)

Well, what had you expected the Russian reaction would be to a hostile military alliance marching up to their border?

We in the West might have a view of NATO and the US as benign powers, but the rest of the world doesn't share that view.

The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries.

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans).

This constitutes a major shift for Northern Europe, which used to be one of the most stable regions in the world — above

Hmm why "used to be" ...? NATO isn't going to destabilize Finland.

, well, their reaction to Finland, Sweden → NATO has varied, "who cares", "military and other counter-measures", ... You think they'll invade...Sweden? Doubtful. (their larger bag has other tricks anyway, like Feb 22, 2022, Mar 30, 2023) We can speculate... What might have happened with a more Gorbachev-style Russia? Would Navalny have invaded Ukraine? Would a less aggressive, democratic Russia have made Ukraine forget about (or down-prioritized) a NATO application?

Happy Easter everyone, or whatever (if anything) you call those days off (if you have them off). OK, you know what I mean. :)

Russian accused of war crimes triggers walkout at UN Security Council
^{— Allegra Goodwin, Florence Davey-Attlee · CNN · Apr 6, 2023}

Albania, Malta, UK, US representatives left when Lvova-Belova was speaking.

one of the most highly involved figures in Russia’s deportation and adoption of Ukraine’s children, as well as in the use of camps for ‘integrating’ Ukraine’s children into Russia’s society and culture — Yale School of Public Health » Humanitarian Research Lab » Conflict Observatory

a clear demonstration of their indifference to the fate of the children of Donbas and Ukrainian children — Vasily Nebenzya

Child abduction is serious enough, but Kuleba aired further concerns.

The country which systematically violates all fundamental rules of international security is presiding over a body whose only mission is to safeguard and protect international security — Dmytro Kuleba

Maybe the Russian nappers could publicize requisite registrations and sufficient paperwork, ask UNICEF to take care of it, or something?

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans). — neomac

People always seem to miss this.

I don't know if you'll agree with this sentiment, but I thank God for the existence of the U.S., and it's post-war opposition to the Soviet Union at each and every turn.

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans). — neomac

People always seem to miss this. — RogueAI

Trying to sweep hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead under the carpet by labeling them as part of "regimes and dictatorships" is beyond disgusting.

Hard to believe people on a philosophy forum would take such a stance.

Trying to sweep hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead under the carpet by labeling them as part of "regimes and dictatorships" is beyond disgusting. — Tzeentch

And it can be easily retorted. Trying to sweep fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships under the carpet by labeling them as part of "hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead" is beyond disgusting.

Hard to believe people on a philosophy forum would take such a stance. — Tzeentch

Expression of outrage has no philosophical value to me. Actually, the opposite of it.

Trying to sweep fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships under the carpet by labeling them as part of "hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead" is beyond disgusting. — neomac

What a joke.

:vomit:

Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans). — neomac

Trying to sweep hundreds of thousands, perhaps even millions, of innocent dead under the carpet by labeling them as part of "regimes and dictatorships" is beyond disgusting.

Hard to believe people on a philosophy forum would take such a stance. — Tzeentch

:up: That is certainly a WTF? attitude. As if the invasion of e.g. Iraq only resulted in the destruction of the regime and the real victims (innocent civilians) never existed.

Russian accused of war crimes triggers walkout at UN Security Council
— Allegra Goodwin, Florence Davey-Attlee · CNN · Apr 6, 2023 — jorndoe

You think it's a good thing to boycott a medium for diplomacy? When countries entered in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations they considered it important to ensure the inviolability of diplomats. This way, even if countries are at war, they can continue communications. Before 1961 this was already considered customary international law. The recent diplomatic boycotts are a regression in international relations and is just an attempt at isolation. I'm not sure which genius thought it was a good idea to try to cut off ways out of this conflict other than continued fighting.

:up: That is certainly a WTF? attitude. As if the invasion of e.g. Iraq only resulted in the destruction of the regime and the real victims (innocent civilians) never existed[/b]. — Baden

That's as good as "That is certainly a WTF? attitude. As if the invasion of e.g. Iraq only resulted in real victims (innocent civilian casualties) and the destruction of the regime never existed". Focus.
What is difficult to understand is not that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, if not billions, if not zillions of innocent victims due to horrifying wars and that this thought makes you really want to vomit outraged emojis all over philosophy forum posts because the world must know you are a very sensitive anonymous dude. What's more difficult to understand are genesis and responsibilities for such wars. And that political governments can not be simplistically judged by their failed wars.
Innocent casualties happened in Iraq as they are happening now in Ukraine. What is debatable is who is to blame for such predicament and its implications. If it's in Iraq, who is to blame? To many, the US of course. If it happens in Ukraine, who is to blame? To many, the US of course. If it happens in Rwanda who is to blame? To many, the US of course. Well I question that is obvious.
The original claim I was targeting was "The western world under US leadership has been the most destructive force on Earth since WWII by an incredibly large margin, having positively ruined dozens of countries". So I countered: "Destructive toward enemies (fascist regimes, Islamist regimes, dictatorships), beneficial to allies (among them the Europeans)."
More in general, as long as the West is depicted just as a destructive force to blame for wars around the world and their consequences, I will counter that this is a ridiculously myopic vision from a geopolitical, political, historical and moral point of view.

You think it's a good thing to boycott a medium for diplomacy? — Benkei

Me personally? I wouldn't have walked out. (Wouldn't have blocked them off the airways either.) Don't know if there was a dialogue/exchange though.

Iraq is certainly a black mark against the U.S. Remember though, that a majority of Democrats voted against the war.

War/violence is bad, I think most agree.

invasion of Iraq — boethius

... have been fairly consistently and openly criticized (including by Americans), as well it should.

Opinion: ‘At my first meeting with Saddam Hussein, within 30 seconds, he knew two things about me,’ says FBI interrogator
^{— Peter Bergen · CNN · Mar 21, 2023} — jorndoe

With that ↑ out of the way, what's an appropriate response to something like the Halabja massacre?

Support/hail the attackers; apathy/laissez-faire (or silent complicity); say "We condemn these attacks" and go on about your business; diplomacy; pray/hope for divine/alien intervention; sanctions/boycotts; lean on the UN; try flooding the attacker's society with ehh propaganda (or otherwise hope journalists can/will engender sufficient exposure/outrage); try clandestine operations to change the attacker's society('s leadership); surgical/small/larger military interventions; respond in kind; destroy/nuke'm; ...? (← not an exclusive either/or)

Indecision is more or less like apathy/laissez-faire. Unfortunately, critique alone can result in the same.

Anyone have good responses? (This thread alone is on page 463 as of typing, surely someone must have something?)

Anyone have good responses? — jorndoe

From the article you presumably didn't read...

The know-how and material for developing chemical weapons were obtained by Saddam's regime from foreign sources.[36] Most precursors for chemical weapons production came from Singapore (4,515 tons), the Netherlands (4,261 tons), Egypt (2,400 tons), India (2,343 tons), and West Germany (1,027 tons). One Indian company, Exomet Plastics, sent 2,292 tons of precursor chemicals to Iraq. Singapore-based firm Kim Al-Khaleej, affiliated to the United Arab Emirates, supplied more than 4,500 tons of VX, sarin and mustard gas precursors and production equipment to Iraq.[37] Dieter Backfisch, managing director of West German company Karl Kolb GmbH, was quoted by saying in 1989 that "for people in Germany poison gas is something quite terrible, but this does not worry customers abroad."[36]

The 2002 International Crisis Group (ICG) no. 136 "Arming Saddam: The Yugoslav Connection" concludes it was "tacit approval" by many world governments that led to the Iraqi regime being armed with weapons of mass destruction, despite sanctions, because of the ongoing Iranian conflict. Among the dual-use exports provided to Iraq from American companies such as Alcolac International and Phillips was thiodiglycol, a substance which can also be used to manufacture mustard gas, according to leaked portions of Iraq's "full, final and complete" disclosure of the sources for its weapons programs. The dual-use exports from U.S. companies to Iraq was enabled by a Reagan administration policy that removed Iraq from the State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism. Alcolac was named as a defendant in the Aziz v. Iraq case presently pending in the United States District Court (Case No. 1:09-cv-00869-MJG). Both companies have since undergone reorganization. Phillips, once a subsidiary of Phillips Petroleum is now part of ConocoPhillips, an American oil and discount fossil fuel company. Alcolac International has since dissolved and reformed as Alcolac Inc.[38]

On 23 December 2005, a Dutch court sentenced Frans van Anraat, a businessman who bought chemicals on the world market and sold them to Saddam's regime, to 15 years in prison. The court ruled that the chemical attack on Halabja constituted genocide, but van Anraat was found guilty only of complicity in war crimes.[39] In March 2008, the government of Iraq announced plans to take legal action against the suppliers of chemicals used in the attack.[40]

In 2013, 20 Iraqi Kurds who were victims of the attack requested a judicial investigation into two unnamed French companies, saying that they were among 20 or more companies that helped Saddam Hussein construct a chemical weapons arsenal. The Kurds sought for an investigating judge to open a case.[41]

As soon as he took power in 1958 Gen Kassem began to offend Britain and the US. They suspected his alliance in the streets with the powerful Iraqi Communist Party. He withdrew Iraq from the Baghdad Pact, the US-backed anti-Soviet alliance in the Middle East. He appointed British-trained leftist bureaucrats to run government ministries. Most important, in 1961 he nationalised part of the concession of the British-controlled Iraq Petroleum Company and resurrected a long-standing Iraqi claim to Kuwait.

Britain had lost its primacy in the Middle East with its failure to overthrow Nasser in Egypt during the Suez crisis in 1956. The US was taking over its role as the predominant foreign power in the region. The CIA decided to use the Ba'ath party, a nationalist grouping with just 850 members but with strong links to the army. In 1959 a party member named Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti, aged 22, had tried to assassinate Gen Kassem in Baghdad, but had been wounded in the leg.

In return for CIA help Mr Aburish says the Ba'ath party leaders also expressed willingness "to undertake a 'cleansing' programme to get rid of the communists and their leftist allies." Hani Fkaiki, one of the Ba'ath party leaders, says that the party's contact man who orchestrated the coup was William Lakeland, the US assistant military attache in Baghdad.

Accused by the Syrian Ba'ath party of co-operating with the CIA, the Iraqi plotters admitted their alliance but compared it to "Lenin arriving in a German train to carry out his revolution." — https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/revealed-how-the-west-set-saddam-on-the-bloody-road-to-power-1258618.html

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

So, in answer to your question. Yes, there is something we can do in response. It's the 'something' that we've been banging on about for the last 400 pages.

Stop fucking interfering in the rest of the world simply to make profits for the powerful oil, arms, fertiliser and pharmaceutical industries.

With that ↑ out of the way, what's an appropriate response to something like the Halabja massacre? — jorndoe

If the US government or the West in general truly cared about human rights violations and war crimes they wouldn't have to look very far.

What's the appropriate response to the United States' elaborate torture programs ala Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib? Or the indiscriminate killings that have been constant in every American war against third-world countries? What about chemical warfare against the Vietnamese people, where to this day deformed babies are born as a result of the attacks?


The appropriate response certainly isn't sheepish silence, or to look the other way and only address these issues when they suit one's agenda.

The argument is directly and entirely related to the war in Ukraine - the topic of this thread. It is that promoting Europe's and the US's systems of soft imperialism as a solution to this war - the current war, the one this thread is about — Isaac

Yeah, there you go...

Well, EU has kept EU members from fighting each other. And btw, NATO members have also done that, thus the member states have followed Article 1 of the organization.

I'm just happy that I'm not living in an expendable buffer state anymore.

Last Tuesday I went to a local cafe down the street. People sitting in one table had put a little NATO flag on the table. Basically people had been informed the day before that Finland will be accepted, so the timing came as a surprise. Once Erdogan was going to accept Finnish membership, Hungary acted very quickly the same way as not to be the last country standing out. Hence at least now it ought to be a different matter if Russia makes threats to Finland.

Of course Sweden is still out, which basically just shows that NATO is an international organization, not something that the US can dictate on itself (as history has shown well). I consider it more of an awkward issue for NATO than a genuine threat for Sweden, because the US among others have already. I think that it Finland could had waited for Sweden to be ratified too, but I guess that would have made the ratification process more dramatic as it actually is. Countries simply haggle in international organizations, hence Turkey's and Hungary's actions aren't totally out of context.

Btw, Finnish foreign minister gave in the signing ceremony immediately Finland's ratification of Swedish membership. One of my friends mentioned that this was an mistake: Finland ought to have asked Sweden for consultations in order that Finland could accept them into NATO. Obvious issue would have been Juha Mieto losing the gold medal to Swedish Thomas Wassberg in Lake Placid Olympics by one hundredths of a second. Hence Sweden should nullify Wassberg's performance. :grin:

Well, EU has kept EU members from fighting each other. And btw, NATO members have also done that, thus the member states have followed Article 1 of the organization.

I'm just happy that I'm not living in an expendable buffer state anymore. — ssu

Whether the EU is safe, or whether you're happy are not the question. You claimed soft imperialism was 'better'. If your claim now is only that Europe (and you personally) would have been better off if Russia had followed 'soft' imperialism instead, then frankly I don't care - I don't think there's any merit to benefiting one's own position at the expense of others. If you do, then there's little else to discuss. Our radical differences in morality obviously explain our different assessments in policy.

You support the US and Europe involving itself in this dispute in the way it has because that benefits you, and yours, and it's harming others is not your concern. Makes sense.

The original claim is demonstrably true. Your attempt at apologia is unsupportable and further undermined by your patronising attitude. You can't erase the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability that comes with it with vacuous handwaving. It's not indicative of an anti-western bias to acknowledge the reality of the millions of innocent civilians killed in e.g. Vietnam and Iraq due to the attacks on those countries by the US and its allies. There is no "maybe" about it. That in no way excuses Russia's recent actions but it may be relevant to the overarching context.

The original claim is demonstrably true. — Baden

Demonstrate it then. BTW my claim is demonstrably true as well, isn't it?

your multiple patronising ad homs — Baden

Quote two of my patronising ad homs and explain why they are fallacious.

You can't erase the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability that comes with it with vacuous handwaving. — Baden

Dude, chill out, I’m in no power to erase any historical events from people’s memory with a post on a philosophy forum thread. Even less so if the thread is full of very much active and vocal participants that keep reminding everybody else how evil is the US.
My pointing out the fact that the US-lead world order was beneficial to its allies is vacuous hand-weaving as much as your reference to “the entire post WWII history of western violence and the culpability”.

It's not indicative of an anti-western bias to acknowledge the reality of the millions of innocent civilians killed in e.g. Vietnam and Iraq due to the attacks on those countries by the US and its allies. There is no "maybe" about it. That in no way excuses Russia's recent actions but it may be relevant to the overarching context. — "Baden

But the bias may lie in what one wishes to infer from the acknowledged reality of the millions of innocent civilians due to the attacks on those countries by the US and its allies, or it may lie in what sense certain facts are taken to “be relevant to the overarching context”. That’s what I’m after. That’s what I might want to question.

Demonstrate it then. BTW my claim is demonstrably true as well, isn't it? — neomac

I withdraw the claim that it's demonstrably true because you are right in indicating the subjective nature of the judgement.

As for the rest, the implicit acknowledgement that the millions of civilian victims of western aggression since WWII are not appropriately categorised as "enemies" and thus disregarded, but better as "innocents" is enough for me to consider the substance of my original objection well made.