Ok, but what does any of that have to do with anything Jeff Sachs or I said? — Tzeentch

Actually, one thing I agree: Europe has to look after itself, because Trump has become the lapdog of Russia. I think I know the apologetics of Jeff Sachs, we've discussed that already.

Because they don't view Russia as a genuine military threat to the EU. — boethius

Lol. :lol:

Well, that's delusional and simply false. No, up until this week, Europeans have truly believed that the US is an ally. With US and NATO allies, there's such a mismatch, that there hasn't been a reason to spend so much more on the military. There was ample deterrence. Yes, it's not just Trump that has been talking about the "Pivot to Asia", that started with Obama. But taking a bigger role in defense of Europe and the US going along with Russia are quite two things. The military threat of Russia is totally real. This week, the threat of a larger war in Europe just increased. And so will likely the Russian hybrid attacks.

Where do I start...

From last year:

“We certainly face military risks. Putin’s war in Ukraine is the single largest threat to our security. This year, Russian defense spending is on track to exceed the collective contributions of all EU member states combined.

Therefore, we need to ramp up our efforts, understanding that readiness for the worst can prevent it from happening. Given the scale of these challenges, we must work together as Europeans to bring about change,” emphasized von der Leyen during her latest speech in Brussels.

Speaking during the Zbigniew Brzezinski Lectures series at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, Sikorski also said Europe was prepared to take responsibility for its own security.

In this context, he stressed Poland’s defense expenditure of 4.3% of GDP, which he said would increase next year to 4.7% and may go higher in the future. He said Poland had no desire for a military confrontation with Russia but had been a victim of Moscow’s imperialism too many times in the past. He said Poland knew what it is to live under tyranny and had no wish to return to it.

“We, Poland, will do whatever it takes not to become a Russian colony again, whatever anybody else does,” he said.

Describing Russia as an existential threat to global stability, especially in Europe, Sikorski compared its credibility with North Korea’s.

An American senator explaining just what has happened and speaking the truth. What is notable, is that in Munich that the bipartisan delegation from the Congress were from both sides were supporting Ukraine. Until Trump did what he did.



Americans really should wake up on what is happening and how dangerous this is for the World. And it should be noteworthy to the Europeans here that there are many Americans like van Hollen, who are still for freedom and Atlantic alliance and understand the betrayal that Trump has done and is trying to do.

What is promising is that several conservative commentators that have been in the Trump train, did have reacted to the lies of Trump and the absurdity what the Mad House of Trump is doing and have at least corrected the lies.

Like Ben Shapiro (see from 4:58 onwards)


And some darling commentators of the anti-woke have also went against Trump, like Douglas Murray, who goes through the lies of Trump in New York Post:

You can criticize Zelensky, complain. But we should be under no illusions about who started this fire and who the true dictator or villain of this tragic tale is.

Trump has a chance to bring an end to this war, to stop the killing. Maybe even win a Nobel Peace Prize. But he will not be honored if the peace is an appeasement, one that bows down in the face of evil as it denies obvious truths.

The judgment of history will be even harsher — decades of peace and prosperity in Europe and America thrown away to a resurgent Russia harassing the East. Without a strong peace, it won’t be just Ukraine that suffers. It is all of us.

That is the ultimate truth.

(See Mr. President: Putin is THE dictator and 10 Ukraine-Russia war truths we ignore at our peril )

I might agree with these guys on everything and sometimes harshly disagree, but they are totally correct here. Worth reading that article above. Let's hope that this kind of sanity will prevail in the US and the House of Trump will stop the worst nonsense. Conservatism and the MAGA-loonies are still different things.

Russia has only conquered Russian speaking, ethnically Russian, and also Russian identifying (to a large extent), regions in Ukraine (large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy).

Russia is simply not conquering, nor shows any signs of intending to conquer, anyone who is not fundamentally cool with being conquered. — boethius

I would call this bullshit. Do you think that speaking a specific language means that you identify with, as belonging to, and wanting to be a citizen of, i.e. "conquered by", that mother country where the language derives? For example, do you think that Americans would be "fundamentally cool" with being conquered by England because they speak English?

Furthermore, it's very evident that many expatriates are expatriates because they disavow the governance of the homeland. But when the disgruntled ex-citizens are perceived as congregating and conspiring against the government of the homeland, by members of that government, they might feel compelled to take action against them.

I do. Do you follow the thread, as you refer to two months ago. A lot happened this week. — ssu

The point was in your seeming to take issue with my description of the "chemical attack script" which obviously came and went along time ago, serving its purpose at the time to further frustrate any attempt at a negotiated settlement.

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever. — ssu

If you thought / think Russia isn't winning in Ukraine and it's only Trump that is spoiling Ukraine "victory", of whatever sort is defined at the end of the process of Russia not winning, it's difficult to start to address this. I will try to get to it later.

The Ukrainian military is essentially melting away at this point.

As Trump is crushing the Atlanticism, and ending Pax Americana, Putin can be very happy. Alexander Dugin stated that this was the (and should be the goal) of Russia, and thanks to Trump, Putin is achieving his objectives. — ssu

.... or in other words:

The war consolidates Putin's power, is amazing for China, and achieves US objectives of preventing a real "World Leader" competitor, which both China and Russia could never be, but Europe would have already displaced US as a global leader with A. peace with Russia and the enormous benefits of it's mineral riches and B. some fucking balls in positions of influence rather than "leaders" that both make sure they appear, as well as seem to feel in their heart of hears, that they must be USA bitches.

This Ukraine war is a disaster for Europe, easily prevented, and a few speeches doesn't rectify anything. Washington, Moscow and Beijing are all getting what they want. Indeed, China and USA far more than Russia, but at least Russia's getting something.

Europe gains nothing, loses a lot, and it's failure to do anything meaningful to have peace, is because European elites do not care much about European interest, neither Ukrainians nor their own populations; they care about US interests, for reason I honestly don't get (I talked years ago with bureaucrats in Brussels about there being no purpose or benefit to antagonizing Russia for no discernible reason; they honestly didn't get my point of view, would just repeat USA talking points about the issue).

When I pushed for some sort of justification, "like why? why though?" they would just get angry with me.

And the "appeasement" argument doesn't work as there's already NATO ... which, ok, sure let Ukraine in by surprise over a weekend ... and see how that goes, but if, by your own admission, no one's letting Ukraine into NATO, why a pointless war of words and sanctions that simply push Russia towards China rather than stick to the European policy of economic ties with democracies a good way to spread to democracies. There was zero logic nor even any understanding of the political situation with Europe's largest neighbor ... supplying 40% of it's natural gas.

As far as I could tell, Brussels bureaucrats just like sucking American dick. Offensive, maybe, but I find pointless bloodshed and cities leveled to the ground more offensive ... don't like that ... well either do diplomacy or go send troops there to defend against said shelling you say you don't like. Honestly, arguing with a mix-tape of stupid would have been a more interesting conversation.

Argument has basically been: if we appease Russia by doing diplomacy in some credible way, they may invade Ukraine ... but stop there because everyone else is in Nato. However, if we don't appease Russia they will for sure probably invade Ukraine as we're for sure as hell not letting Ukraine in our little Nato club, as that would be provoking Russia too much. Therefore, we are fucking morons.

Credible diplomacy not only may have worked, but also increases the costs significantly for Russia if there were credible offers turned down, credible denunciation of neo-Nazi's in Ukraine, EU stopping Ukraine's language suppression programs etc. common sense things, all increase the likelihood of peace directly but also decrease the cost-benefit of war as it's a harder sell to your own population.

Instead, USA is basically "Hey, Germany, go make sure neo-Nazi's are seen to be of credible importance in Ukraine with the implicit backing of the EU, and also make sure they can do whatever language and cultural suppression of Russian speakers there that said neo-Nazi's dream of: make sure Russia sees you do it Germany, I'm counting on you." — boethius

Agree?

Lol. :lol:

Well, that's delusional and simply false. No, up until this week, Europeans have truly believed that the US is an ally. With US and NATO allies, there's such a mismatch, that there hasn't been a reason to spend so much more on the military. There was ample deterrence. Yes, it's not just Trump that has been talking about the "Pivot to Asia", that started with Obama. But taking a bigger role in defense of Europe and the US going along with Russia are quite two things. The military threat of Russia is totally real. This week, the threat of a larger war in Europe just increased. And so will likely the Russian hybrid attacks.

Where do I start... — ssu

"Saying stuff" is not building up arms in any meaningful way, whether to send into Ukraine as the "last line of defence" or then for your own preperation.

What Europe has not done is any sort of crash program of any sort to buildup armaments.

Statistics have been rolled out on the regular that Russia is outproducing all of NATO in basic things like artillery shells, by several factors, and the reaction to EU elites and journalists is just ... hmmm, pity that.

If you actually thought you might be actually invaded by Russia there would be massive efforts of building up arms as well as building up significant fortifications.

Notice your own date of your own citations:

When

From last year: — ssu

... last year ... last year whoever your quoting (which is just talk) wants to:

ramp up our efforts

Well ... why the fuck aren't they already ramped to the fucking max already in 2022 when the war that war to "stop Putin in Ukraine" started?

Or then even before when European leaders were already preparing Ukraine to fight said war? If Russia was such a threat why not prepare also themselves?

There is no actual preparation, much less even the slightest sort of "war time economy" to support Ukraine as some sort of Gondor against the forces of Mordor, because there is no actual belief that Russia poses a threat.

Again, doesn't exclude war with Finland, but Finland doesn't matter.

"Saying stuff" is not building up arms in any meaningful way, whether to send into Ukraine as the "last line of defence" or then for your own preperation. — boethius

Poland isn't just "saying stuff". The way the Finnish military has started to train it's reservists isn't just "saying stuff".

Or news like this:

(Breaking Defense, 2024) German manufacturer Rheinmetall received its largest order in company history today: a deal with Germany for 155mm artillery ammunition, valued at up to €8.5 billion ($9.1 billion) and which will replenish Bundeswehr, Ukrainian and other allies’ stocks.

The European firm said in a statement that a framework contract for the ammunition was signed by Annette Lehnigk-Emden, president of the Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw), and Rheinmetall representatives in Koblenz.

“The order is primarily intended to increase the stocks of the German Armed Forces and its allies and to support Ukraine in its defensive struggle” added the manufacturer. It did not disclose the quantity of artillery shells on order but noted that deliveries are expected to start in “early 2025.”

Well ... why the fuck aren't they already ramped to the fucking max already in 2022 when the war that war to "stop Putin in Ukraine" started? — boethius

As I said, they were very slow to see the threat. Remember that Germany isn't anymore divided, it has Poland between it and Russia. And the US was still there to back NATO up. Poland has seen the light. Not Italy, France and so on.

And people falsely fell to Putin's scares of WW3.

I would call this bullshit. Do you think that speaking a specific language means that you identify with, as belonging to, and wanting to be a citizen of, i.e. "conquered by", that mother country where the language derives? For example, do you think that Americans would be "fundamentally cool" with being conquered by England because they speak English? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I must call bullshit on your calling bullshit.

I clearly specified that "large extent being defined here as enough to render pacification easy"; i.e. being "fundamentally cool with it".

Pacification has been easy (see Afghanistan for a comparison case of pacification being hard).

Now, what most people "truly believe" is a different question to the fact there is clearly enough Russian identity, sympathy or then tolerance to render pacification easy.

Also keep in mind Kiev's campaign to suppress the Russian language ... so, true enough that speaking a language doesn't mean you want to be conquered by the main body of the speakers of that language, but do you really think people like having their mother tongue suppressed and have a strong desire to remain under the rule of people suppressing the language they speak?

Furthermore, it's very evident that many expatriates are expatriates because they disavow the governance of the homeland. But when the disgruntled ex-citizens are perceived as congregating and conspiring against the government of the homeland, by members of that government, they might feel compelled to take action against them. — Metaphysician Undercover

Unclear what you're talking about, but the reality on the ground is that insurgency, sabotage and intelligence rat lines within the conquered territories have had no noticeable effect on the course of the war.

Of note is that there are other regions of Ukraine where that would not be the case which Russia has made no attempt to conquer and pacify; when Russia did go through those regions at the start of the war in the Northern operation to surround Kiev, they made no attempt to conquer and pacify territory (which they obviously know how to do as they did so in the South).

Militarily Russia isn't winning Ukraine, but Trump is giving Putin the biggest political support ever. — ssu

It's more than political support:

'Game changer': US reportedly threatens to revoke Ukraine's Starlink access over minerals

Ah yes, that beautiful realm of cognitive dissonance where Russia is militarily inept, on it's last legs, and simultaneously an existential threat to Europe.

The Russian economy and military are in shambles. It will take decades to recover! Also, they will be at the gates of Berlin in no time: we must militarize!

Oh, how the propaganda machine spins in mysterious ways.

Poland isn't just "saying stuff". The way the Finnish military has started to train it's reservists isn't just "saying stuff". — ssu

There is not the remotest semblance of a European war time economy in preparation or planning.

Saying stuff, arms deals / profiteering from the situation, and updating military training (which armies do anyways in response to contemporary conflict whether they feel threatened or not) are not the remotest semblance of planning, preparing for, "laying the ground work", and much less in the process of implementing some sort of wartime economy that you definitely would be in the act of doing if you thought you actually might be fighting Russia.

And again, your evidence betrays the reality of the situation.

(Breaking Defense, 2024) German manufacturer Rheinmetall received its largest order in company history today: a deal with Germany for 155mm artillery ammunition, valued at up to €8.5 billion ($9.1 billion) and which will replenish Bundeswehr, Ukrainian and other allies’ stocks.

2024 ... a whole two years into the war, and only to "replenish stocks" and not somehow match, much less exceed, the Russian rate of production to fight a large scale conventional war in Europe with said Russian production.

This arms deal is simply the common sense and nearly inevitable result of sending nearly all the ammunition available to get used up in Ukraine (or then sold onward on the blackmarket) in that those stocks need to be restocked at some point.

As I said, they were very slow to see the threat. — ssu

You betray yourself!!

If they're only "seeing the threat" in 2024, then obviously they were lying to us before when the war was existential for Europe and democracy and the "rules based order" from the get go (the "war starting" referring here to the significant expansion of the war in 2022).

You're basically saying "well they were lying to us before and totally didn't see Russia as some sort of actual threat were just 'saying stuff' in order to exploit Ukraine for cynical ends. But now, Now, NOW! they totally see the threat now and they are totally telling us the truth Now.

Ah yes, that beautiful realm of cognitive dissonance where Russia is militarily inept, on it's last legs, and simultaneously an existential threat to Europe.

The Russian economy and military are in shambles. It will take decades to recover! Also, they will be at the gates of Berlin in no time: we must militarize! — Tzeentch

It's Schrödinger's war machine.

There is no cognitive dissonance: the narratives are superimposed simultaneously without that bothering anyone in the slightest.

2024 ... a whole two years into the war, and only to "replenish stocks" — boethius

This arms deal is simply the common sense and nearly inevitable result of sending nearly all the ammunition available to get used up in Ukraine — boethius

Well, you answered it yourself.

Now, NOW! they totally see the threat now and they are totally telling us the truth Now. — boethius

Well, because the Trump team is basically hostile to Ukraine and on the side of Russia. So yes, that indeed is really a change here.

It's Schrödinger's war machine. — boethius

:up: :lol:

It's Schrödinger's war machine.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics.

In the meantime Russia is capable of throwing a vast amount of artillery at her opponent and is developing her drone capability quickly. A drone arms race is not good and needs to be choked off asap. This situation could become very expensive as Putin is throwing all his remaining money at it. This needs to be avoided and Trump throwing a spanner in the works really doesn’t help.

I thought I was enough clear, the quotes I’ve reported are all linked so anybody can click and get more context. Anyways, I doubt that more context is gonna help address my points, so I’ll try another way. This time I will not use full quotes but I will report your views as I roughly understood them. No sarcasm, no rude tone, ok? Feel free to highlight and correct where I’m badly misrepresenting your views.

There are some basic factual premises which I find handy to start investigating/explaining interstate conflicts. They concern respectively: people’s “right” to self-determination and power relations among countries.
People’s “right” to self-determination (whatever its degree of codification in the international law) can DE FACTO inspire political struggles for greater emancipation from foreign or sovranational powers perceived as oppressive interference, exploitation or occupation (see Ukraine vs Russian, EU vs the US, Palestine vs Israel, Taiwan vs China, European nations vs EU, Catalonia vs Spain, ex-colonies vs ex-colonial powers, Kurds against Middle Eastern regional powers, etc.) and spin propaganda accordingly or be ready to fight down to its most bitter consequences (and fail).
Then there are DE FACTO power relations among countries as a function of their demographic, economy, technology, defence resources, geography, collective psychology, powerful allies, etc. which DE FACTO political leaderships can exploit to advance foreign political agendas. From that perspective, if power relations favour Russia over Ukraine, Russia will more likely prevail over Ukraine on certain contended issues, if power relations favour the US over EU, the US will more likely prevail over EU on certain contended issues, if Israel power relations favour Israel over Palestine, Israel will more likely prevail over Palestine on certain contended issues, etc.
What is the link between people’s “right” to self-determination as a motivational factor and power relations? Well, people’s ‘right’ to self-determination as a motivational factor can nourish people cohesion (e.g. in light of collective historical traumas) and morale (i.e. determination and tolerance for privation and suffering) so this important motivational factor among others can weigh in establishing power balance. On the other side, if power balance is not determined exclusively by collective psychological factors and collective feelings about a political predicament, then it’s possible that power relations will eventually frustrate “people’s ‘right’ to self-determination” aspirations.

What I just drafted shouldn’t be controversial because it’s totally independent from personal preferences, moral/juridical justifications/condamnation or political propaganda. Now, the reasons why I bring that up are two:

1) In some posts you stress the fact that you are explaining not justifying (e.g. when you talk about Russia strategic interests), in other posts you seem condemning more than explaining (e.g. when you talk about the Palestinian genocide by Israel), in some others you seem to mix the two (e.g. when you talk about the US provocations and engage in blame talking). However you do it in ways that look to me somehow inconsistent. Here is a more concrete example: believing that the Ukrainian emancipation from Russian hegemony and the Ukrainian chumming up with the US was perceived as a “provocation” by Russians sounds to me as plausible as claiming that the European emancipation from the US hegemony (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) and chumming up with Russia (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) was perceived as a “provocation” by the US. If Russia’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over Ukraine, even brutally, because Russians felt provoked, then also the US’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over EU, even brutally, because the US felt provoked. And if US/Ukraine are to be blamed for provoking Russia and Russia’s consequent reaction, then also EU/Russia (even more so the anti-American or anti-Washington populist) are to be blamed for provoking the US and US’s consequent reaction. In other words, the symmetry in attributing “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” between Russia vs Ukraine and the US vs the EU is such that justification/condamnetion and blame can be equally distributed on both sides. So they can NOT ground the asymmetry you seem to believe in: namely, that the US’s reaction was less justifiable than the Russians’, and that the US/Ukraine are more to be blamed than European populism/Russia for this conflict. And since you mostly insist on the US hegemonic aspirations, US provocations against Russia, and European (especially populist) aspirations to emancipation from the US, my point is precisely that “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” can be symmetrically distributed so they do not explain the asymmetry of judgement. Other premises must be invoked to ground the asymmetry in judgement and blaming: something like the US provocations against Russia were significantly worse than Russia provocations against the US, or it was the US which started all of it, or the US is more evil than Russia, or I don’t care about Ukrainian emancipation as much as I care about European countries emancipation, and the like. Whatever premises ground your blame attribution and condemnation, I think they would deserve more focus than the US “hegemonic aspirations”, European “emancipation aspirations” and Western “provocations” against Russia.

2) In your “realist” explanations, you often brought up Mearsheimer’s arguments mostly to back up your own views, however I’m not sure how committed you are toward his arguments or where your views diverge from his (the fact that you think there is more strategy than incompetence per se doesn’t improve understanding over the strategy, nor does the idea that the blob hiddenly pushing Trump now is the same crew pushing Clinton/Bush). One related example is when you talk about “the blob”: indeed, one of Mearsheimer’s arguments is that American antagonism with Russia (and exporting democracy) was driven by neoliberal agenda while Mearsheimer’s ideas were more open to accepting a division of sphere of influence to avoid American overstretching and ally with a weaker/declining Russia to contain the rising China. So Trump’s approach seems very much in line with what Mearsheimer’s was suggesting. Yet the problem for the European emancipation from the US hegemony is that the change in strategy from neoliberal to Trump’s (and Mearsheimer’s) doesn’t look less worrisome, on the contrary it looks more worrisome because it’s openly humiliating and threatening European “allies” down to obedience to avoid nasty retaliations. And given Trump-Musk support for European far-right populism (like AfD), I’m not sure if European populism is still the right horse to bet on for European emancipation. So not only changing strategy by the US doesn’t look more promising for European emancipation neither European populism does. Your belief that that the same hidden crew of Washington is frustrating European emancipation aspirations or serving American imperialist aspirations or abandoning allies, before or under Trump’s administration, besides looking unverifiable to me, it doesn’t change the fact that the strategy looks pretty different, the prospects for the European emancipation look rather compromised now, in spite of (or maybe even thanks to) rising far-right populism, and the pattern of American abandoning allies can not be explained via neoliberal hypocrisies because they are grounded on Mearsheimer-style reasoning over foreign politics.

Said that, here are two major differences between my and your views (among others): while you were warning and still keep warning about provoking Russia, Russia’s security concerns and the danger of servile pro-US European elites. I was warning about provoking the US, Russian aggressive imperialism (which goes way beyond than just not having Ukraine inside NATO) and the dangers of servile pro-Russian (and now tempted to turn pro-US) populist movements.
And while, prior to this conflict, the Europeans under the neoliberal agenda (the one you despise so much) grew prosperous and relatively safe, and had the best opportunity to develop a collective European military-industrial complex for their own security (but I suspect you are against a collective European military-industrial complex) without risking the kind of retaliations that a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US are capable of, as of now. You seem/seemed to believe that precisely this Ukrainian conflict was the best chance for Europe to emancipate itself from the US without risking Russia’s retaliations by making political choices that would have anyways led to a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US (and without a collective European military-industrial complex).

1) In some posts you stress the fact that you are explaining not justifying (e.g. when you talk about Russia strategic interests), in other posts you seem condemning more than explaining (e.g. when you talk about the Palestinian genocide by Israel), in some others you seem to mix the two (e.g. when you talk about the US provocations and engage in blame talking). However you do it in ways that look to me somehow inconsistent. Here is a more concrete example: believing that the Ukrainian emancipation from Russian hegemony and the Ukrainian chumming up with the US was perceived as a “provocation” by Russians sounds to me as plausible as claiming that the European emancipation from the US hegemony (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) and chumming up with Russia (especially under the form of anti-American or anti-Washington populism) was perceived as a “provocation” by the US. If Russia’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over Ukraine, even brutally, because Russians felt provoked, then also the US’s reaction was justifiable in imposing its will over EU, even brutally, because the US felt provoked. And if US/Ukraine are to be blamed for provoking Russia and Russia’s consequent reaction, then also EU/Russia (even more so the anti-American or anti-Washington populist) are to be blamed for provoking the US and US’s consequent reaction. In other words, the symmetry in attributing “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” between Russia vs Ukraine and the US vs the EU is such that justification/condamnetion and blame can be equally distributed on both sides. So they can NOT ground the asymmetry you seem to believe in: namely, that the US’s reaction was less justifiable than the Russians’, and that the US/Ukraine are more to be blamed than European populism/Russia for this conflict. And since you mostly insist on the US hegemonic aspirations, US provocations against Russia, and European (especially populist) aspirations to emancipation from the US, my point is precisely that “hegemonic aspirations”, “emancipation aspirations” and “provocations” can be symmetrically distributed so they do not explain the asymmetry of judgement. Other premises must be invoked to ground the asymmetry in judgement and blaming: something like the US provocations against Russia were significantly worse than Russia provocations against the US, or it was the US which started all of it, or the US is more evil than Russia, or I don’t care about Ukrainian emancipation as much as I care about European countries emancipation, and the like. Whatever premises ground your blame attribution and condemnation, I think they would deserve more focus than the US “hegemonic aspirations”, European “emancipation aspirations” and Western “provocations” against Russia. — neomac

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years, and the world as represented in the UN General Assembly agrees almost unanimously, just like virtually every human rights organisation imaginable, including Israeli human rights organisations.


Second, when geopolitical actors meddle in ways that are misleading and exploitative, I have no qualms with making moral statements about that.

Russia is clearly a wolf and widely perceived as a calculating geopolitical actor. The US on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and therefore much more dangerous because people are ignorant to its true nature.


In neither case is there a double standard, since the two things being compared are simply not the same.

I support Ukrainian independence. What I do not support is incompetent nations like the EU, or exploitative nations like the US leading it down the prim rose path by feeding it fake promises of security.

2) In your “realist” explanations, you often brought up Mearsheimer’s arguments mostly to back up your own views, however I’m not sure how committed you are toward his arguments or where your views diverge from his (the fact that you think there is more strategy than incompetence per se doesn’t improve understanding over the strategy, nor does the idea that the blob hiddenly pushing Trump now is the same crew pushing Clinton/Bush). One related example is when you talk about “the blob”: indeed, one of Mearsheimer’s arguments is that American antagonism with Russia (and exporting democracy) was driven by neoliberal agenda while Mearsheimer’s ideas were more open to accepting a division of sphere of influence to avoid American overstretching and ally with a weaker/declining Russia to contain the rising China. So Trump’s approach seems very much in line with what Mearsheimer’s was suggesting. Yet the problem for the European emancipation from the US hegemony is that the change in strategy from neoliberal to Trump’s (and Mearsheimer’s) doesn’t look less worrisome, on the contrary it looks more worrisome because it’s openly humiliating and threatening European “allies” down to obedience to avoid nasty retaliations. And given Trump-Musk support for European far-right populism (like AfD), I’m not sure if European populism is still the right horse to bet on for European emancipation. So not only changing strategy by the US doesn’t look more promising for European emancipation neither European populism does. Your belief that that the same hidden crew of Washington is frustrating European emancipation aspirations or serving American imperialist aspirations or abandoning allies, before or under Trump’s administration, besides looking unverifiable to me, it doesn’t change the fact that the strategy looks pretty different, the prospects for the European emancipation look rather compromised now, in spite of (or maybe even thanks to) rising far-right populism, and the pattern of American abandoning allies can not be explained via neoliberal hypocrisies because they are grounded on Mearsheimer-style reasoning over foreign politics. — neomac

Yes, I think Mearsheimer is too quick to assume incompetence rather than deliberate strategy on the part of the US.

Considering the US is objectively the most powerful, and most dangerous, nation on earth, at the very least the idea of deliberate strategy should be exhausted before assuming incompetence. Currently, it remains conspicuously absent from the discussion.

Mearsheimer himself has argued that the influence of US presidents on foreign affairs is limited at best, and whether Trump is truly acting independently from 'the Blob' is unclear. I never said I had definitive thoughts about that.

About European 'emancipation' I have little to say. Europe is a lost cause. It will take decades for it to undo the damage of post-Cold War soft power US colonialism. But for the US to leave is obviously a prerequisite for things to get better.

Said that, here are two major differences between my and your views (among others): while you were warning and still keep warning about provoking Russia, Russia’s security concerns and the danger of servile pro-US European elites. I was warning about provoking the US, Russian aggressive imperialism (which goes way beyond than just not having Ukraine inside NATO) and the dangers of servile pro-Russian (and now tempted to turn pro-US) populist movements.
And while, prior to this conflict, the Europeans under the neoliberal agenda (the one you despise so much) grew prosperous and relatively safe, and had the best opportunity to develop a collective European military-industrial complex for their own security (but I suspect you are against a collective European military-industrial complex) without risking the kind of retaliations that a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US are capable of, as of now. You seem/seemed to believe that precisely this Ukrainian conflict was the best chance for Europe to emancipate itself from the US without risking Russia’s retaliations by making political choices that would have anyways led to a “victorious” Russia and “angry” US (and without a collective European military-industrial complex). — neomac

What's the US going to do? Leave? Conquer Greenland?

Let them. The sooner they show their true face, the better.
The principal threat is not an 'angry' US - the US is thousands of miles away across an ocean - but European 'Trans-Atlanticists' prostituting Europe to the American agenda.

I don't believe in the narrative that the Russians are coming for Berlin. The Ukraine war neither suggests they have the intention nor the capacity to threaten Europe.

Europe's population is roughly four times that of Russia. It's GDP is roughly ten times that of Russia.
Even if Europe organises its defense inefficiently on a country-by-country basis there ought to be no Russian threat.

The only reason Europe is vulnerable is because American interests have infiltrated its every institution like a Trojan horse, disallowing it from making sensible decisions.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/turkey-supports-ukraines-nato-membership-zelensky

The Ukraine conflict is not comparable to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Ukraine is much more morally grey. — Tzeentch

It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey.

The story here is that Europe will now re-arm. This will take a decade or more. In the meantime Russia is weak and can be held at bay for that decade.
The fly in the ointment is the possibility that Trump will gift Ukraine to Putin. This will embolden Putin allowing him to replenish his army and threaten Europe before it re-arms and will have a destabilising effect on geopolitics. — Punshhh

Yes, I agree with you.

What now is likely will happen is that Ukraine simply won't accept the Trump's pro-Russian plan, and Trump will have a temper tantrum on Ukraine ...and Europe. And Europe really has now to aid Ukraine. Let's hope they finally start with the billions of Putin's seized money. Then forget the spending limits and simply use debt to spend more on defense.

Here's what the Americans like JD Vance don't understand. Questions like wokeness or what is considered hate-speech, all this cultural war debate, are issues to be debated inside every democracy and their Parliaments and in their political arena. Threats to the existence of Sovereing states are totally different. And talking about taking the territory of another Sovereign nation state is an opening of Pandora's box. In Europe, we take it deadly serious. And the emphasis is on deadly. It's not about our economical benefits or political or moral character, it is the threat of war and our existence. Political debate or economic benefits or trade issues aren't so important. They don't mean anything compared to our security, which isn't just a few terrorists succeeding in their actions.

Trump seems to be incapable of understanding just how much damage he has done.

It's not. Above all, Russia is an existential threat under Putin's attempt on an imperial Reconquista. A Russia under someone else would have made things totally different. But now Putin will continue his aggressive policies, they simply won't end with Ukraine. He will go after NATO countries, this is for sure.

For the majority of Europeans, thankfully this a black and white issue and only those falling to Russian propaganda will see it as grey. — ssu

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself.

In the case of Israel-Palestine, it is not morally grey at all. It is perfectly clear to me what has gone on over the past 70 years — Tzeentch

Like when several Arab nations immediately attacked Israel from all sides and Israel didn't just roll over and die. What a travesty! :lol:

But yes, clearly black and white. We can all see the group that abducts civilian hostages and murders a mother and her little children in captivity are clearly the good guys. The issue couldn't be any clearer. All the human rights organization agree. No need to look at the footage or draw our own conclusions; just trust the organizations. The internationalist organizations always hold the truth and cannot be compromised.

Jews in Gaza are dead or hostages. Palestinians in Israel serve in Parliament. By all means, continue listening to your internationalist sources flush with Qatari money.

Clever. :)

Zelenskyy says he would step down if Ukraine can join NATO, blasts Trump mineral pitch
^{— Cybele Mayes-Osterman · USA TODAY · Feb 23, 2025}

I simply cannot take you seriously if you consider the Ukraine conflict and Israel-Palestine conflict in the same moral ballpark.

I don't even believe that you sincerely believe that yourself. — Tzeentch

Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark?

The only difference is that Palestine and the Palestinians aren't a sovereign state that is attacked by another sovereign state, as in the case of Ukraine. That simply makes a huge deal, because once sovereign states can be done away with, that changes quite a lot in the World.

If you understand so well the reasonable objective of Putin's Russia, then you can well understand "the reasonable objectives" of Netanyahu's administration.

It is. The guy isn't a dictator, unlike one wanna be we have here.

, FYI, I updated an old post (Feb 15, 2025); the dictator (illegitimate president) thing originates at the Kremlin.

Perhaps it would be correct to think what the worst outcome can be here.

Well, it might be that:

a) European NATO countries insist to themselves that there is no problem with the Trump administration, that just as long as nobody asks Trump about it, we can just say that nothing has changed and the alliance is working. And Republicans will (behind the back of Trump, of course) insist that there's nothing to worry, the US is has their backs and this is just a negotiating tactic of Trump. Naturally they won't make this publicly.

b) That European NATO countries push Ukraine accept the punitive extraction attempt from Trump. Because of a).

c) Obviously Putin knows that he has Trump by the balls and can make him squeal as he wants him to do just by dangling in front of him some billion dollar deal that personally benefits the Trump family. Trump, who has never been interested in Europe or Ukraine, likely will give in for further demands as he sees the mirage of Russia billions in his eyes.

d) The likely one is what Putin has wanted for a long time, a demand which he actually put immediately on Trump when he was a candidate: have US troops leave the Baltics. And this can be done secretly, just like with Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, where the US just says it is pivoting to Asia. US forces simply won't participate in exercises in the Baltics... for cost cutting reasons. This is basically going back to the time when NATO didn't have any warplans to defend the Baltics, because having them would have upset Russia. And this was the truth before the invasion of Crimea 2014.

e) Once this is done, well, the Putin can freely go after the Baltic states with the much used playbook of creating "internal conflicts" and in order to protect the Russian minorities, "Russian volunteers" or "Russian peacekeepers" are sent in. And why not, because the US won't do anything and European members haven't prepared or don't want to intervene because of a).

The Finlandization of NATO is totally possible, which just show what an existential threat Russia is for Europe.

Why wouldn't you put them into the same ballpark? — ssu

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.

Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum.

Because one is committing globally acknowledged crimes against humanity, and has been for some 70 years, and the other is not.

Morally equating the two is perhaps the most childish thing I've seen you do on this forum. — Tzeentch

Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there!

The attacks on civilians, civilian infrastructure, hospitals and taking away of Ukrainian children just show what kind of enemy Putin's Russia is. Russian army had showed already in Chechnya how it fights wars.

I remember what a Finn that had fought in Ukraine told about a prisoner exchange they had. The Ukrainians delivered Russian prisoners of war, the Russian gave them Ukrainian children.

So that's the enemy you are so much understanding and putting on a different category. It really starts with things like Ukraine as a country "is an artificial construct". It is quite similar as the condescending attitude towards "There is no Palestine or Palestinians".

Wow, seems you are definitely on Putin appeaser. Quite a Pro-Putinist there! — ssu

You're a clown, mate.

Person who cannot refute the argument goes to ad hominem attacks.

Taking into account timelines, the history of Russia is quite bloody. But we are talking about the current here.

Your arguments are too ridiculous to waste time on. Subtle difference there.