In his 2014 article ‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault’, John Mearsheimer said the U.S. should “publicly rule out” NATO membership for Ukraine, and aim to make the country an economically prosperous, “neutral buffer” between Russia and NATO. This, he argued, could defuse the conflict that had already sparked clashes in the Donbas.
Instead of heeding Mearsheimer’s advice, the U.S. doubled-down on its policy of ignoring Russia’s security demands. NATO troops began military exercises in Ukraine in September of 2014. By June of 2020, Ukraine was recognised by NATO as an “Enhanced Opportunities Partner”.
And in November of 2021, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a “Charter on Strategic Partnership”, which declared that the U.S. “supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO”.
The supposed reason the U.S. followed this policy is given in the quotation above: it cares about the principle of national sovereignty. Ukraine’s post-Maidan government aspired to join NATO, and Russia shouldn’t get a veto over this. Whether Ukraine eventually joins NATO is a matter for Ukraine and NATO.
I say “supposed” because there’s a more cynical reason why the U.S. followed the policy it did: to antagonize Russia, with the aim of “overextending and unbalancing” the Russian economy and armed forces.
In any case, America’s supposed concerns about the principle of national sovereignty were outlined even more clearly in a speech Biden gave on 15th February, shortly before Russia’s invasion. He declared:
Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate.
Sounds pretty reasonable, doesn’t it? The only problem is the U.S. flagrantly ignores this principle in its own foreign policy. The most recent example concerns the new security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands. Here’s what the White House had to say:
If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence, power projection capabilities, or a military installation, the delegation noted that the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly.
In other words, the U.S. objects to China building military bases close to its ally, Australia, and if China does so, the U.S. will “respond accordingly”. Now, the US probably wouldn’t invade the Solomon Islands to prevent China building a military base there, but it might impose crushing sanctions with the aim of destroying the Solomon Islands’ economy.
Such sanctions would obviously constitute a gross violation of the Solomon Islands’ freedom to “set their own course and choose with whom they will associate”.
Scott Morrison, the Australian PM, even announced that a Chinese military base in the Solomon Islands was a “red line” for Australia and the U.S. This is interesting because it’s exactly the same phrase William Burns used in 2008 when warning of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion. Here’s what Burns said:
Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
So America’s foreign policy is basically: do as I say, not as I do… and if you don’t do as I say, I will “respond accordingly”. What’s the upshot of all this?
It’s not that Russia should just be able to invade its neighbours with impunity. It’s that if the US had applied the same principles to Russia that it applies to itself (and its allies), we might have been able to prevent the war in Ukraine.
The West cannot claim that Australia’s concerns about Chinese military bases are entirely legitimate but Russia’s concerns about NATO bases are entirely illegitimate. I mean, it can, but not by appealing to any general principle. “Might makes right” is fine when you’re the global hegemon, but it’s not going to fly when China’s just as powerful as the U.S.
Following the policy outlined by John Mearsheimer may not have prevented the conflict. (Perhaps Russia would have invaded anyway – we can’t be sure.) But doing the exact opposite surely made the conflict more likely.
Of course, this is largely a moot point, since there’s good reason to believe the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy actually wanted a war with Russia.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Great post.
Perhaps his best. Keen insight at work here.
I hope Noah understands that there are costs to this level of noticing the things that we are supposed to pretend aren’t there….
Good stuff.
Yeah, he’ll most likely be cancelled and banned from all social media. Can’t have people going about pretending the truth is true can we?
The USA has lost any remaining moral authority it had.
More and more people who previously supported the US and its Western allies can see very clearly that “we are the baddies now”.
That’s not to say that Russia or China or India are “the goodies” but they are by some distance less bad than the US and less interventionist in their foreign policy.
There are large factions in the elites of many countries that still support the USA.
They don’t necessarily argue for it intellectually, and they haven’t necessarily ever set foot in a USA army base, “had a great holiday” in Las Vegas, or entertained concentration camp officers from Guantanamo, but even if they don’t themselves own a condo in the USA, eat USA pseudo-food, encourage their infants to drink sugary USA pseudo-drinks, wear ugly USA clothes, watch violent USA films, idolise sluttish USA celebrities, or send their brats to USA universities (whether “multiple choice”, “Ivy league sports scholarship”, or “Ivy League academic”), they still associate socially with those who do. You can judge people by who they hang out with.
It’s such a relief to meet people who have a clue in this regard.
Seriously, why on earth listen to a British person, for example, who says they support this or that “right” of the Ukraine, but who has never even bothered to summon up the guts at any time in their whole life to reflect on USA hegemony over Britain itself?
I condemn the war mongering of a lot of the Washington set, which goes on under either ‘colour’ of government, they have not moved on since the times of Dr Strangelove.
However I object to the rest of your rant. My youngest son is at University in Denver and we spend quite a lot of time in the States. Just like most places in the world, the view from outside is very different to that which you have when living in a country. The US does indeed have its fair share of ‘trash’ but also probably far more than its fair share of quite amazing things a well.
Your picture of the US is as far from the truth as is say the NYT view of Britain, which is mired in the London fogs of the 50s.
What a load of rubbish. How many people actually want to live like Russians and Chinks? I know I certainly don’t
Personally, I don’t want to live like “modern” Yanks and Brits:
Russian Army Ad Makes Woke US Army Ad Look Like a Joke for Kids | DM CLIPS | Rubin Report
Piss off to China and be told what to do then
No.
That’s just about the best post I’ve read: wins the “succinct” category hands down. Chapeau.
God help us! Those that the gods wish to destroy they first make woke.
I was talking about their foreign policy and their moral authority.
In any case, we in the West are rapidly moving towards a level of authoritarianism akin to Communist China and the Soviet Union. Just look at events over the last two years in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, many parts of Europe.
James Blish “They Shall Have Stars” first book of the Cities in Flight series. Strangely prophetic in this regard.
I’m fine living in the USA. For starters, it may be the safest place in the world from American bombs and missiles.
I wonder what JFK would say ?
Isn’t that precisely the point? It’s high time that bombing the USA became a part of every war they initiate. Killing Americans on home soil makes them utterly hysterical, so the more of it gets done, the sooner they will stop killing the rest of humanity.
I wouldn’t say China are ‘less bad’, The Belt & Road will end up colonising the countries where they do business. Those leaders who sell out to them are just self-serving to make a quick buck with no overthought to what that will mean for the future of their country. Though, It may come back to bite them when the mob realise they’ve been sold out. They may get lynched and they would probably deserve it.
Have you had a chat with Pakistanis about this lately? They seem to have been ‘regime changed’ by the USA and, hey presto, Billy Gates is back to dish out his dodgy vaccines again.
I notice that this kind of phrase is as universal as “of course, every death is a tragedy” during COVID. What I’d like the more reasonable, non-aligned critics of Western warmongering policy to lay out is what the correct alternative Russian strategy should have been.
OK, invasion is wrong, even to protect your nation’s existence. So what would the ideal Russian line have been, if we exclude the acceptance of American/British hegemony?
There are a few reasonable, and reasonably honest and consistent positions.
1 One can be a pacifist and oppose all uses of force. But as Orwell noted: “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
2 One can take the view that the use of force by states is merely a routine tool of foreign policy that is to be judged in each case on its merits. That’s pretty much the “natural” state of affairs.
3 One can view the use of force as a last resort that should be regarded as unacceptable except in the case of extreme need, to be collectively approved in every case, or treated as illegal.
In my view 1 is silly. 2 is the natural order, and 3 is the position idealists tried to move to with the UN treaty and charter, after the horrors of the world wars.
3 would be very nice if it can be achieved (I’m open to it, but rather sceptical), but it requires the most powerful to agree to be bound by it, because while weaker states can be coerced, superpowers (by definition) cannot.
The UN order was largely in abeyance during the Cold War, because that took precedence in all major decisions. But with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the emergence of the unipolar US dominance in the 1990s, there was a chance for it to be established. All that was required was for the sole hyperpower to show that it would agree to be bound by it.
Sadly, that’s not what happened. Led by the neocons and liberal interventionists, US foreign policy was driven by those who declared “we don’t need your stinking rules based order”, and who took the view that such restrictions should only apply to others. Hence we had Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Syria.
And so 3 was no more, and we are in reality back to 2 (while still paying lip-service, of course, to 3).
Which leaves us with 2, and the assessment of justification on a case by case basis. Inevitably there will be disagreements, based on subjective balancing of facts and motivations.
My view is that Russia’s war is reasonably justifiable (although high risk), based on Russia’s need to secure itself against the long term encroachment of a demonstrably militarily aggressive and ideologically universalist military alliance. Arguably, Russia had tried every alternative, and been contemptuously rebuffed by a US sphere that thought Russia had no choice but to lie back and accept what was coming to it. Realists thought Russia would not invade because it would lose in the long run, as a result of the costs of war, resistance and sanctions. Russophobes and US-uber-alles types hoped Russia would invade, because they likewise thought that Russia would lose in the end. (And military industrial types saw the huge profits be made, of course).
But Russia clearly made different calculations. Mostly in the economic sphere, where they obviously knew that the consequences would be economic warfare by the US sphere, which they have been forewarned of and had plenty of time to prepare for.
So far, I’d say things look favourable for the Russians. In the pure military sphere, they can’t really lose, it’s just a matter of how long it takes to grind down the Ukrainian resistance. In the far more important political and economic areas, it appears Russian support for the war is reasonably solid, there’s no chance of real dissent (helped by the rabid Russophobia displayed in the US sphere, and the destruction by sanctions of the major political centres of resistance to the regime’s power), and economically they seem well able to weather the consequences, probably much better than Europe.
Blame for the war rests on those who needlessly provoked it. The US sphere for pushing NATO membership gratuitously eastwards, rather than ending NATO in 1992 with a big party and medals all round. The nationalist fanatics in the Ukraine who were simply not prepared to live in peace with the Russians within their borders, and who were empowered, they thought, by US and EU backing.
As so often, the pursuit of maximalist goals ends in disaster.
It has been pointed out that if a federal structure had been adopted for the post-Soviet construct that was the modern Ukrainian state, it might have survived. Too late now, I think.
Yes. I seem to remember Frank Baum was a liberal interventionist who believed in genocide against the “native Americans”. Scratch a liberal, find a Fascist…
Philip Kerr summed it up with this quote in the Bernie Gunther books
“You’re the worst kind of Fascist, the kind that thinks he’s a Liberal”
There are a few reasonable, and reasonably honest and consistent positions.
1 One can be a pacifist and oppose all uses of force. But as Orwell noted: “Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.”
It is more than a little ironic that the author of 1984 and Animal Farm has here made use of a classic example of state militarist deceptive propaganda, in this case operating on two separate levels:
A) That conscientious objectors are being protected from injury or death by those fighting on their behalf. In fact war massively increases the dangers faced by everyone in the effected zones, not just combatants, indeed in the modern era at least often a majority of casualties are civilians – from COs themselves to babies.
Oh yes, and, let’s not forget the ongoing contemporary threat of nuclear armageddon.
B) That wars are necessary to protect the freedoms that exist in democratic countries, including the right to avoid fighting itself. No conscientious objection in Nazi Germany, for example.
This fails on two grounds – there is of course no guarantee that democratic nations will defeat totalitarian ones (see eg Vietnam); plus being killed during warfare is the ultimate experience of state tyranny.
No freedom in death (at least in the materialist / non-spiritual sense).
Having said all that perhaps a quicker way of challenging Orwell’s argument would be to ask – who was fighting on Jesus’ behalf to allow him to abjure violence?
Mark’s list of possible approaches to warfare also missed one out –
4. That we seek to bring to an end to all current conflicts (including Ukraine, Yemen etc) as swiftly as possible, then make serious move towards universal disarmament (already written into various treaties).
This in turn necessarily involves the softening of the armed and dangerous nation-state system into one of non-violent localised administrations.
That is, in fact the entire direction of progressive history, with the internally non-violent and tolerant underpinnings of multi-party liberal democracy (as opposed to the inherently violent and oppressive underpinnings of the current regimes in Russia and China) pointing the way forward.
“Having said all that perhaps a quicker way of challenging Orwell’s argument would be to ask – who was fighting on Jesus’ behalf to allow him to abjure violence?“
Well, Jesus was prepared to accept crucifixion and death. Most aren’t willing to go that far.
Christianity generally has been willing to contemplate the idea of Just War, and Christian societies generally have accepted violence in self defence.
“Mark’s list of possible approaches to warfare also missed one out –
4. That we seek to bring to an end to all current conflicts (including Ukraine, Yemen etc) as swiftly as possible, then make serious move towards universal disarmament (already written into various treaties).”
That’s arguably a kind of corollary of the UN position, isn’t it?
One problem I have with it is that universal disarmament tends to push towards global government, which I see as the ultimate disaster. We probably disagree on that.
“internally non-violent and tolerant underpinnings of multi-party liberal democracy“
You appear to have been living in a very different ” multi-party liberal democracy” from the one I’ve been living in, and seeing around the world, for the past couple of years.
Well, Jesus was prepared to accept crucifixion and death. Most aren’t willing to go that far.
My point remains that warfare and all other types of organised violence massively increase the danger of death to all those living in the regions affected, including civilians – and ultimately due to the existence of nuclear weapons all of humanity.
In other words until we progress away from the current conflict-prone system we are all prepared to accept [metaphorical] crucifixion and death
The only real difference in terms of the behaviour and safety of anti-violence campaigners such as Jesus is that they refuse to take part in or endorse the destruction and killing itself (though in his case he certainly did know that he was facing almost certain execution due to the nature of his power-challenging ethical creed)
Christianity generally has been willing to contemplate the idea of Just War, and Christian societies generally have accepted violence in self defence.
One of the many reasons that I don’t support any organised religions (including Christianity) is that they frequently maintain contradictory and harmful positions. Jesus stance against all violence was unambiguous, as for example stated in the Sermon on the Mount.
I do believe in a universal spirituality and that we all have an eternal (and ultimately perfect) soul.
“Mark’s list of possible approaches to warfare also missed one out –
4. That we seek to bring to an end to all current conflicts (including Ukraine, Yemen etc) as swiftly as possible, then make serious move towards universal disarmament (already written into various treaties).”
That’s arguably a kind of corollary of the UN position, isn’t it?
One problem I have with it is that universal disarmament tends to push towards global government, which I see as the ultimate disaster. We probably disagree on that.
Well you missed this section out: This in turn necessarily involves the softening of the armed and dangerous nation-state system into one of non-violent localised administrations.
So clearly no more United Nations, and indeed no global government / super-state of any kind.
“internally non-violent and tolerant underpinnings of multi-party liberal democracy“
You appear to have been living in a very different ” multi-party liberal democracy” from the one I’ve been living in, and seeing around the world, for the past couple of years.
I presume you are referring to the wholesale suspension of vast swathes of normal human rights and freedoms in democratic countries using a relatively minor flu-like disease as the excuse over the last couple of years (now thankfully coming to an end).
There was still massively less direct state violence of the type that takes place in both Russia and China, eg covert or overt execution of journalists and other dissidents.
But the main point it shows is that liberal-democratic rights are always vulnerable to being withdrawn at any time as long as we maintain the nation-state with its false claims to the monopolistic right to use coercion (including financial, imprisonment etc) to enforce its diktats.
Which is why I wish to see that whole structure and underpinning ideology (nationalism) peacefully evolved away from – non-violent and tolerant cooperation is in fact the normal way of life for human beings, and (in principle at least) operates in all non-criminal and non-state organisations.
There are huge problems with universal disarmament. One of them is getting everyone (and that really has to mean everyone) doing it at exactly (and that really has to mean exactly) the same time. Unless you can achieve that – which looks about as likely as persuading pigs that they really can sprout wings and fly to Venus – you will always get to a position where somebody, or a lot of somebodies, are completely defenceless because they have been honest or stupid enough to play ball, while others are still armed to the teeth. Then what do you think will happen? How do you fancy gambling your life on the hope that every politician in every country still holding weapons, is as honest/stupid as your politicians have just proved themselves to be?
Then, if you somehow manage to pull off this miracle, there is the little matter of keeping everyone on message into the future. How do you ensure that nobody gets fed up with this game of international lovey dovey pat-a-cake, and decides that they will secretly make a new pea shooter in their garden shed when nobody else is looking? You know, just in case. Purely for self-defence, of course. Or maybe a couple of pea shooters. You can’t be too careful…
I believe that ‘violence as a defence from injury or death’ is a complete illusion, one that endangers every single human being every day of their lives – ultimately via nuclear armageddon, but also the possibility of living within a conventional war zone, terrorism etc.
Disarmament is in fact reasonably easy to carry out if the will is there (think eg Northern Irish peace process scaled up).
The main thing standing in the way of this happening at a worldwide level is the all-pervasive influence of self-interested nation-state propaganda.
In any case once mass armaments manufacture and the existence of armed forces are progressively and cooperatively abolished it would be almost impossible to reintroduce them.
People would enjoy the experience of living (largely) without fear and suspicion of their fellow humans (plus the enormous economic benefits that would ensue) so much that they would simply refuse to engage in any rearmament projects.
War would become a distant and horrific memory in much the same way that medieval tortures are viewed now.
Regardless of all that, and again, the alternative is not an illusory peace and security under a benign military umbrella but rather the constant danger of death or injury in war, including the humanicidal nuclear version.
Dangers which include the children we are all meant to protect.
You think killings etc between rival groupings has stopped in NI? Its just been deliberately erased from the medias spotlight that is all.
I said in a previous exchange, unless you chemically castrate Man, his underlying aggressive nature will exist.
You really have to live in the real world you know.
Yes our disagreement does come down to a fundamental view of the human condition –
I believe that far from being inherently aggressive we all possess a compassionate and non-violent eternal soul, and that it is only faulty education and propaganda (and indeed the inner temptations toward greed, anger, revenge etc that we are meant to and can overcome) that can temporarily lead us away from this.
“Disarmament is in fact reasonably easy to carry out if the will is there (think eg Northern Irish peace process scaled up).”
The IRA didn’t give up their weapons.
Both PIRA and the official IRA have formally decommissioned their weapons (in 2005 and 2010 respectively).
I do accept that there hasn’t been full disarmament in the Province as both a small minority of paramilitary dissidents and (obviously) the remaining British armed forces there continue to possess weapons.
That doesn’t change the fact that there has been a very high level of disarmament, a relatively tiny amount of continuing murderous violence, and that hardly anyone in NI would wish to see a return to the Troubles.
In other words it is heading in the right direction, as should the entire world.
3 is the position idealists tried to move to with the UN treaty and charter, after the horrors of the world wars.
The same idealists who – once they had reordered Europe according to the well-known maxime of Keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down immediately started fighting wars in other places all over the world, something they haven’t stopped until now?
There’s nothing idealistic about the Alantic Charter. It’s a perfectly arbitrary diktat forced onto the world at gunpoint and not intended to do anything except to get rid of an enemy who had proven to be rather too difficult to defeat, basically requiring a year long combined effort of all major, global powers, who preferred the odds in their wars to be more stacked in their respective favours.
Well, I hope you will accept that terrorists will terrorise US centres more and more in future then. If you basically say that the USA can go around invading and killing, regime changing and looting, then it is entirely reasonable for non-state actors to use nanothermite to blow up Capitol Hill; it is entirely reasonable to blow up every major water storage dam in the USA; and it is entirely reasonable to destroy vast amounts of US sports infrastructure too.
I can remember when ethnic cleansing was regarded as just cause for military intervention.
I don’t recall much sympathy being shown towards the Tibetans after the Chinese invaded and set about ethnically ‘cleansing’ them.
Russia should outspend the Soros NGOs. Soros and Eu and US money corrupts the yammering elites in every country and provides their children with cushy pretend jobs and glamourous lifestyles. Russia should do likewise – amazing how much positive PR you can buy with a few millions lavished on the great and the good.
The long-eastablished warning about not poking the bear was meant to be taken seriously. It’s a pity people have such short memories or choose to ignore the wise words of earlier statesmen (a word I now find difficult to ascribe to anyone in authority in the west).
I don’t see how the people who pushed the “Ukraine for NATO” line can’t have known what the likely Russian response would be. If we accept that the “American” industrial-military complex has a substantial influence on politics, then perhaps we can start to get to the bottom of things.
Now listen to Scott Ritter and you get to level 2….
https://youtu.be/p6HI_26aU-c
Madeleine Albright’s Legacy Lives on as False Flag Attacks and Fake News Comes Straight From Yugoslav War Handbook
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2022/04/17/madeleine-albrights-legacy-lives-on-as-false-flag-attacks-and-fake-news-comes-straight-from-yugoslav-war-handbook/
The events on the ground and across the diplomatic community involved in the Ukraine conflict are strikingly similar.
The former UN Ambassador for the U.S. and first female secretary of state won’t be missed in the Middle East. The link between her legacy in Yugoslavia and Iraq and the Ukraine will not have Gulf oil rich kingdoms lining up to write her eulogy
With the death of Madeleine Albright being covered by much of western media, followed by the anniversary of the siege of Sarajevo we are reminded of her legacy in the former Yugoslavia and how she, along with Richard C. Holbrook, Warren Christopher and Peter Galbraith, finally convinced Bill Clinton to throw the lever on NATO airstrikes.
The events on the ground and across the diplomatic community involved in the Ukraine conflict are strikingly similar as we see President Zelensky constantly begging and haranguing western leaders to impose a no fly zone, which could probably lead to an air campaign later on. The difference is that Biden is weak and too afraid of Putin, whereas Clinton didn’t have the same dilemma with Milosevic, who was easy to bully on the battlefield.
Just as Bosnia’s Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, regularly telephoned Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1994 to tell him that NATO must go ahead with a bombing campaign against Serb positions, Zelensky also makes the same calls asking for the unrealistic no fly zone.
“Just as Bosnia’s Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic, regularly telephoned Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1994 to tell him that NATO must go ahead with a bombing campaign against Serb positions, Zelensky also makes the same calls asking for the unrealistic no fly zone.“
The only difference between Serbia and Russia, in this regard, is that Russia has nuclear weapons. Were it not for that, there can be little doubt that “we” would already be at war with Russia.
Let that be food for thought for unilateralist nuclear disarmers and those who claim that deterrence “doesn’t work”.
“We” have been, and are being, deterred, right now.
The US/NATO is basically at war with Russia, without being at war with Russia.
We have always not been at war with Russia.
Biden well on his way to losing his second proxy war vs Putin.
The idea that “nations are free to make military alliances” is similar to punching the air in front of somebody’s face and saying the air belongs to everybody, or “it’s a free country”. If you do that sort of thing, then you are a thug and you shouldn’t expect sympathy if the person you’re bullying gives you what you richly deserve by laying one on you.
Incidentally any NATO member (e.g. Estonia, or even Britain) can declare it will veto the acceptance of a membership application from any non-member. NATO is just a faker’s word for the empire of the USA’s military-industrial complex.
This
“NATO is just a faker’s word for the empire of the USA’s military-industrial complex.”
‘Of course, this is largely a moot point, since there’s good reason to believe the people in charge of U.S. foreign policy actually wanted a war with Russia.’
Great discussion piece
However it assumes a coherence and consistency to U.S. foreign policy that, blindingly obviously, simply isn’t there. How could it be with a Presidency yo yoing between Trump and Biden, polar opposites, with pretty much a black hole in between.
Even the Kremlin doesn’t believe that Ukraine is a U.S. satellite. The ‘casus belli’ is all about Europe, de-Europeanisation.
‘Debanderization by itself will not be enough for denazification – the Bandera element is only a performer and a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
It goes on to suggest further de-Europeanisations:
‘And also because not just the Bandera version of Nazi Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism’
Russian state owned RIA Novosti 04 April 22
This is backed up by further more recent announcements:
‘On April 21, the deputy commander of Russia’s Central Military District, Major General Rustam Minnekaev, said that control over the south of Ukraine would give Russia land access to unrecognized Transnistria, where “there are allegedly facts of oppression of the Russian-speaking population.”
as a consequence of which, the Moldova Government summoned Russia’s ambassador to explain….
Moldova, Sweden, Finland, are all so much closer to the action than Britain is.
That Sweden, and Finland, have now given up their hitherto strongly held neutrality speaks even more loudly than the actions of the Moldovan Government.
They all recognise that, realistically, this is all about a totalitarian plutocracy being unable to accept that large numbers of its inhabitants will voluntarily choose to emigrate across the border to an increasingly successful capitalist democracy, and, after Ukraine is destroyed, who will be next on the ‘little list’.
‘Don’t tell him your name, Pike!’
“However it assumes a coherence and consistency to U.S. foreign policy that, blindingly obviously, simply isn’t there. How could it be with a Presidency yo yoing between Trump and Biden, polar opposites, with pretty much a black hole in between.”
Not sure how seriously to take that. Are you really as naive as you appear?
US foreign policy is driven by “permanent Washington” – all the lobbyists, appointees and employees of the big departments and companies who either don’t change from one administration to another, or are replaced by identically thinking placemen from the “other party”. It is not driven by the political figureheads who come and go. Permanent Washington manages the boat-rocking created by the said figureheads so that it does no undue harm to the objectives of the powerbrokers. Thus, while there can be changes, there is far more stability than you seem to believe.
When a figurehead seems to be getting in the way of the policies desired by permanent Washington, steps are taken to bring them back into line, such as the Russiagate fabrication that was used to ensure the Trump administration didn’t rock the policy of aggression towards Russia too hard.
It’s the way you tell ’em
Plainly you have never worked in a large organisation.
They are all highly political, politicised, and each President brings with him a mass of placemen.
The idea that President Trump did not rip up much of President Obama’s policies…
I’m going to have to stop now….I may have damaged my ribs……
Funny how as US Secretary of State, Clinton’s liberal interventionist (and psychopathic Serb/Russia hater) Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was replaced by Bush II’s Iraq War pusher Colin Powell, followed by neocon interventionist Condoleezza Rice, and then by Obama’s liberal interventionists Hilary Clinton and John Kerry, and then by Trump’s military interventionists Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo, and then back to Biden’s liberal interventionist Antony Blinken.
Much surface froth, but little change in the basic policy of interventionism. You can be sure not much changed in the State Dept basements where funding was pushed into subverting the various targets for US regime change
“The idea that President Trump did not rip up much of President Obama’s policies…”
Granted there are details that vary from one administration to another, for instance from more confrontation of Iran to less confrontation of Iran. But these changes are often more cosmetic than substantial. And the broad thrust remains remarkably stable, including especially fundamental, long term strategic policies such as the pressure on Russia. These tend to be consensual within the bipartisan Beltway elite
Julian Assange is a prime example…Trump always said how he loved Wikileaks yet once in power, did sweet FA for him.
The placemen all come from the same source, the beltway.
No matter who you vote for the government always gets in
“increasingly successful capitalist democracy,”
Koolade drinking mainstream nonsense.
The Ukraine is a bastion of corruption, drug snd people smuggling, not to mention Western government aid/lobbying churn. Yeah and the citizens (non Russian) get some access to Western baubles and Chinese slave manufactured iPhones. They, like you, choose to ignore the costs of these corrupt enterprises and buy into the notion that they are becoming new good Westernised capitalists.
Western Free Market Capitalism is not what it used to be, I guess you didn’t notice.
You will very soon.
Oh forgot to mention the Nazis…
“What Nazis” the MSM
‘Nations have a right to sovereignty and territorial integrity. They have the freedom to set their own course and choose with whom they will associate.’
This article makes a good point
‘In other words, the U.S. objects to China building military bases close to its ally, Australia, and if China does so, the U.S. will “respond accordingly”.
‘the US probably wouldn’t invade the Solomon Islands to prevent China building a military base there, but it might impose crushing sanctions’
And that is the point.
Nations can choose and that means all nations, including trading partners choosing to cease trading. Those are the hard choices of foreign policy, led by the democratic vote, in a capitalist democracy, entirely distinct from military invasion.
Ukraine’s President has made it clear that NATO membership for Ukraine is no longer on the table. It never was, except as a negotiating ploy. Nations with territorial disputes are specifically excluded from NATO membership.
The invasion of Ukraine is nothing more than a barbaric powerplay by a cabal of plutocrats only interested in buttressing their domination of a resource rich and backward country.
Surprising how weird so many so sound on scepticism re lockdowns, masks etc have been regarding Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, or maybe not:
‘Here they are: international ‘observers’ at the illegal and illegitimate ‘referendum’ held in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea occupied by the Russian ‘little green men.”
The overwhelming majority of the ‘observers’ are representatives of a broad spectrum of European extreme-right parties and organisations: Austria’s Freiheitliche Partei (FPÖ) and Bündnis Zukunft, Belgian Vlaams Belang and Parti Communautaire National-Européen, Bulgarian Ataka, French Front National, Hungarian Jobbik, Italian Lega Nord and Fiamma Tricolore, Polish Samoobrona, Serbian ‘Dveri’ movement, Spanish Plataforma per Catalunya.
They were invited to legitimise the ‘referendum’ by the Eurasian Observatory for Democracy & Elections (EODE), a smart name for an ‘international NGO’ founded and headed by Belgian neo-Nazi Luc Michel, a loyal follower of Belgian convicted war-time collaborationist and neo-Nazi Jean-François Thiriart.
Presented by Michel as ‘a non-aligned NGO’, the EODE does not conceal its anti-Westernism and loyalty to Putin, and is always there to put a stamp of ‘legitimacy’ on all illegitimate political developments, whether in Crimea, Transnistria, South Ossetia or Abkhazia.
Moscow’s money talks.’
Open Democracy 28 April 2014
“Surprising how weird so many so sound on scepticism re lockdowns, masks etc have been regarding Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, or maybe not”
LOL! Nice try. But the reality is much simpler than your conspiracy theory.
Comments here seem “weird” to you because you are looking at them from the same perspective as a covid panicker in 2020 looked at the discourse here – from the perspective of someone who has fallen fully victim to the group-think and propaganda, looking at people who are sceptical of it.
This ain’t rocket science.
Well…apparently Putin thinks it is rocket science….
‘“This truly unique weapon will strengthen the combat potential of our armed forces, reliably ensure the security of Russia from external threats and make those who, in the heat of aggressive rhetoric, try to threaten our country, think twice.”
‘Prof. Chalmers added that Sarmat was unlikely to make a big difference to Russia’s ICBM force due to its “already considerable destructive potential” – but said a single missile armed with 10 warheads could target areas as large as Texas or France, potentially killing millions of people.
Russia is due to replace old missiles in 2022 with Sarmat missiles that have been in development for years.’
22 March 22
So who to believe, a nom de plume on the internet or the governments of Finland, Sweden, now abandoning fiercely held neutrality, the government of Moldova summoning their Russian ambassador to explain Russia’s publically announced threat to Transnistria?
Hmmm…….tricky…..or not really……
The Sarmat and related Russian missile advances were what Putin very explicitly warned of as direct consequences of US aggression, and specifically the abandonment of stabilising treaties such as the ABM treaty, back in 2016. He pointed out that Russia lacks the resources to match the US by spending trillions on developing an ABM complex such as the US proposed, but it could and would respond asymmetrically by building better missiles.:
“It was precisely this balance of power that guarantees the safety of humanity from major global conflict, over the past 70 years. It was a blessing rooted in a “mutual threat” but this mutual threat is what guaranteed mutual peace on a global scale. How they could so easily tear it down, I simply don’t know.
Sure, “the United States are not developing weapons for the purposes of an offensive operation”… At least not that which is in the public eye, although we know for certain that this is occurring. I’m not about to get into asking that right now – we’re perfectly aware that it is happening. “okay you’re not developing it!” But the facts are; there is an anti-missile defense system being developed in the United States. Sure, today it is not in working order and we’re not yet sure if it will ever be implemented.
However, theoretically, it is created in order to be implemented. Again, hypothetically – understand that there will be a moment in time where our nuclear potential will be completely neutralised. Our current capability I mean can be completely neutralised by this anti-missile defense system. It this is the case then that means the balance of power in the world will be completely upset. This means that one of the powers will feel a complete sense of security. Which in turn means it can do what ever it likes not only in regional conflicts – but, now. We are talking about its unmatched might in global conflict.
This is the only food for thought, don’t let me come off like I am accusing you of something. But International Relations is much like mathematics – there is nothing personal about it. Therefore we will respond accordingly – but how?
We can match you in you actions and build an equally great multi-million dollar anti-missile defense system or taking into account our economic and financial capability in the current day – we can respond asymmetrically. So that it is clear to all that “yes there is an anti-missile defense system in Europe – but as it relates to Russia it is entirely pointless. Because we have a weapon that can nullify it. This is the path that we are going to take. It works our cheaper for us. But in now way is this aggression against the United States. I fully mirror your behavior when you say that your anti-missile defense system “is not targeted against us” – then our new weapon is “not targeted against you” either!.”
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/Reports/putinspeech2016.html
The US successfully tested a hypersonic missile in mid-March but kept it quiet for two weeks to avoid escalating tensions with Russia as President Biden was about to travel to Europe, according to a defense official familiar with the matter.Reportedly this is the first fruitful test of the Lockheed Martin version of the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) that was fired through a B-52 bomber located on the west coast according to a source. The weapon was driven to incredible speed using a rocket before the motor was fired and shot at a hypersonic velocity of Mach 5.
Seen any screaming headlines of the type used against Russia from the ‘apparently’ ‘democratic free press?
Good change of subject though. I wonder why?
‘….financial support takes three routes: private Russian actors…….; dark money channelled to political actors through ‘laundromats’; and State-funded government agencies. While it not possible to quantify the volume of dark funding from Russian laundromats or state agencies, Russian oligarch funding accounted for USD186.7 million in 2009–2018.’
EPF Tip of the Iceberg Report 2021
“Good change of subject though. I wonder why?”
?
Do you ever have original thoughts of your own are you just happy to quote selected commentators whose pedigree most of us don’t know let alone value.
nd let us see the outcome of the neutrals move to abandon their principles and scrap neutrality.
Whereas many on here get their views from sources they can’t even identify. Once they have been told their opinion, they go and seek more nonsense to corroborate it.
As a general principle, my suspicions are aroused when it is clear that I am being pushed to have a particular opinion by the overwhelming weight of governmental and “mainstream” messaging.
I knew early in 2020 that I was supposed to believe that COVID was a truly terrifying and disastrous “thing” which required exceptional actions to protect us all.
I have known for some time that I am supposed to believe that Putin is the modern equivalent of Hitler, a wicked and evil tyrant whose every deed should be opposed.
The Ukrainian situation has revealed to me just how many people on this site really are “daily sceptics”.
I should add that it’s an impressively large number, which I don’t encounter in my daily life!
“Surprising how weird so many so sound on scepticism re lockdowns, masks etc have been regarding Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, or maybe not:”
Not surprising in the least.
Their whole methodology is to object to everything presented by western governments and democratic counties free press. They would rather believe the Russian stuff, because it fits with their objectional ways.
I am surprised that they don’t object to the football scores and weather reports.
Ah, tackle the man, forget about the ball. Rather typical and rather pathetic.
The point is with the “sceptics”, the ball is not the point. It changes…
Just have a look at what you lot object to.
The “ball” takes a lot of forms.
And the supposed mass war grave-pits for 9000, mostly civilians. Ha- f*-ing – ha! I trust not a single word of globalist, liberal, western msm and govts: https://youtu.be/CeEnCcn1S3I
It has been shown to the Global Elite how easy it was to brainwash the population into believing Covid was a lot worse than it was to bring in nefarious measures of control to further their agenda.
They have also shown how easy it is to brainwash the population with lies and propaganda about Russia and Ukraine (the same play book they used for Syria and elsewhere).
They will now turn their attention towards demonizing China to secure US hegemony around the world.
The US and it’s poodles will do and say anything to make sure they are the only dominant force in the world.
and rightly so, because nobody in the West wants to live the kind of oppressed, miserable lives that the world’s dictatorships and communist regimes lead.
As far as brainwashing the population goes I rest my case.
When you use phrases like “global elite” and “brainwash the population”.. Are your referring to Russian actions and their propaganda?
If so you are correct.
So many brainwashed people are barking up the wrong Tree.
(See what I did there? Saves me replying to him).
And the 80% of brainwashed Russians, who believe in the SMO?
It is indeed poodles, but hopefully not Crufts ones. Cruel to dogs…
Beyond the reference to U.S. position relative to the Salomon Islands as a recent iteration of a long-standing and absolutely central U.S. policy tenet, it would be worth considering as Professor Mearsheimer has done in his writings that the contradiction in the U.S. policy on Ukraine is best understood by the Monroe Doctrine, a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy since the 19th century. It has of course been expanded upon as the U.S. became first a regional, then a global (super)power to prevent by any means including militarily any foreign power installing a military presence in the Northern hemisphere. The best parallel in this regard to the current situation in Ukraine would be the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis where this policy was applied and upheld to the point of brinkmanship in the nuclear age. Is Russia as a great power not simply doing the same in a role reversal compared to 1962?
The USA and some of its allies most definitely wanted a war in Ukraine. It damages Russia and no USA / UK troops are directly involved. It’s a perfect win win for a failed Prime Minister and a delusional, senile President. It also happens to be a win for USA / UK military manufacturers who will be reaping billions from EU Governments too stupid to realise they’ve been duped into building up massive armaments they can little afford. What are these armaments for? To protect them from whom?
Well, the actual Cuba and the fictitious Mexico example already exposed US/Western/NATO hypocrisy and double standards here.
Cui Bono? suggests clearly that the US MIC and OGMC, together with Brszesinski-driven rabid but super-stupid US/UK geostrategists and ‘intelligence’ services created this conflict most deliberately and with exactly this consequence, a Russian invasion, as their real goal- this is Mearsheimer’s one flaw, he could not and cannot bring himself yet to see just that.
That this would happen at the long term economic and strategic expense of EUrope was also a part of their plan, and slowly some people like Scholz or Dohnanyi can see and articulate that.
The stupidity of theirs was the inability to foresee the closer Russia/China&co relations and de-dollarization, which will both cost the West much more dearly.
The safety of the West’s citizens is now also much reduced instead of strengthened, not least because of a much higher risk in the future of accidental nuclear launches.
With politicians, strategists, military and ‘intelligence’ people and journo lapdogs like this in the West, who needs enemies?!
The USA believes in democracy ?
What about when the USA helped to bring down the lawfully elected president, Salvador Allende of Chile on the other 9/11 (1973)
The wrong kind of democracy….
You said it, Mark.
Imran Khan believes they are currently interfering in Pakistan…I suspect he is not wrong.
Interestingly, Mark Steyn said yesterday that he likes to read English language Pakistani papers as they have some interesting pieces.
Don’t expect to change any of the enquiring minds here on these RT and Sputnik talking points but I find Kamil Galeev (MLitt in Early Modern History, St Andrews; MA in China Studies, Peking University) worth reading for an alternative take from a Russian’s point of view. Very good on the significance of the Russian Mafia state and Russian fascists like Ivan Ilyin and now Aleksandr Dugin.
‘You may want to stop this war ASAP, but it’s not up to you to decide. It’s up to Russia which invaded Ukraine for a reason. And this reason remains irrespective of Putin or Zelensky, CSTO or NATO, Siloviki or Mail. It’s not a war of regimes. It’s a war of memes. The motivation behind Z-war is not “security”, “alliances” or even political affiliation. It’s the need to extinguish wrong cultural memes and impose correct ones. That’s why Z-war has such a wide popular support and why Russians so easily agreed for a total war against Ukraine.’ (Includes lots of Pushkin so TY or JD might enjoy, hadn’t appreciated how ‘sound’ Pushkin was from a Russian cultural perspective).
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1516162437455654913.html
This was intended as a small victorious war like Georgia and Chechnya to increase Putin’s ratings. It may turn out more like defeat by Japan in 1905.
“Very good on the significance of the Russian Mafia state and Russian fascists like Ivan Ilyin and now Aleksandr Dugin.“
When it comes to hard-headed realist analysis of international relations, I prefer realists like Prof Mearsheimer to this kind of more subjective speculative and political stuff.
That’s not to say that there isn’t a place for the latter, but it’s inherently subjective, especially if you don’t balance it properly, such as accounting for the influence of neocon and liberal interventionists on US policy, and the self-interest of the military industrial types in Washington.
And in the end, it’s usually the superpower (US) that sets the context and drives events, not the lesser power (Russia).
‘…the need to extinguish wrong cultural memes and impose correct ones.’
Quite so. De-Europeanisation is the sinister phrase that they use.
They are prepared to spend lavishly on ‘useful idiots’ in Europe who share their extreme views, as we see here.
When you say ‘alternative take’ what you mean is your usual take?
This is a one sided article and it actually doesn’t tell you very much at all, other than the author is anti-Russian.
…..I firmly believe that Putin would have been open to talks both before and now, if the ‘leaders of NATO’ we’re willing to do it, ….the fact that they are not is what should really be the subject of articles….……what is their agenda?
……..and I don’t have to wrap that up in faux-learned clap-trap.
I wonder what the USA will do if it succeeds in creating the whole world in its own image.
Won’t happen, the military/industrial complex needs enemies.
That complex is perhaps the biggest threat. ( Copyright Eisenhower 1961 ).
NATO will not seek to expand one inch eastward. ( Steve Baker et al to Russia 1990 ).
Very good point
Probably the two best US foreign policy moves after WWII were (i) Nixon’s “opening to China”, splitting her from her alliance with the USSR, and (ii) Reagan’s decision to try to end the Cold War, which succeeded – and more than succeeded in that he not only ended it but won it.
Both these achievements were secure under Bush the Elder, but the collection of immature characters who have dominated the White House since those days have tossed them both away, driving China and the Russian Federation into each other’s arms and into enmity with the USA.
It says something that the narcissistic oaf Trump proved a much better President than Slick Willie, W, O, and the husk of Joe Biden. Has it been worse than even inter-war French foreign policy? Yes it probably has; and nuclear weapons means it all matters much more.
P.S. Mr Carl shouldn’t use “moot” in the American sense if writing for an educated UK readership. Pull your socks up, young Noah.
Surely, the average Joe would by now have read and seen a lot of information, which contradicts the main western narrative of bad Russians invading peaceful Ukraine unprovoked? Surely the average Joe would conduct his own research just for the sake of saving Ukrainian lives, since after 2 months the war has only escalated and more civilians ended up dead. Surely the average Joe would try to make sure that him becoming significantly poorer is indeed making a difference?
Is this the same Joe who hid under his bed for two years terrified by a Cold virus, swallowing every spoonful of pap fed him by his Democratic Government?
The same Joe, but the stakes are higher: potential nuclear conflict with millions or even billions dead as a pinnacle of never ending escalation… Although, not sure if even this is a good enough reason for the average Joe to switch on his brain.
That’s what they want you to believe
What would the “researched” summary of real events be?
What should the response have been and why?
What would have been the consequences?
NATO expansion, US orchestrating state coup in 2014, weaponizing neo Nazis, Donbass war and killings of Russian speaking civilians by Ukrainian forces and neo Nazis, depriving large chunks of population to use the language they want and honouring ww2 heroes the want, disregarding signed Minsk agreements, zelensky forgetting the peace mandate he was elected on behalf of. And after February 2022, there are many, many documented atrocities perpetrated by Ukrainian forces against both military and civilian targets. None of this means that Putin and Russians are saint. Horrible things happened from both sides. By to manufacture consent of the average Joe for the prolonged conflict, he only needs to see one side of the story.
That’s not research that’s reiterating internet memes.
I won’t even bother posting links to numerous websites and videos confirming a lot of nuance and history between Ukraine and Russia. There is plenty of documents confirming that Ukraine is very far from being a peaceful country which now under unprovoked attack just because Putin is evil. None of the links and videos will be from the Russian state media, but rather from the very same western MSM, which now conveniently forgotten everything it had said before, and by many independent western journalists.
Isn’t it amazing that the Western powers have deliberately made China powerful by destroying the lives of their indigenous working classes and exporting our industrial capacity to China.
But forty years ago China was an economic basket case, our ruling class are pure evil.
Can you clarify?
What are you having difficulty with?
Why do you say “our ruling class is pure evil”?
Who are they, specifically?
What do you mean by “destroying the lives of their indigenous working classes “?
Actually, you will find it is capitalism that achieved this.
Export manufacturing to get lower costs.. Wake up 20 years later and find you have educated your competition.
Capitalism works because it suits the cheating/corner cutting nature of people. But it has drawbacks.
What you have seen with exporting manufacturing is nothing compared to what the effect of automation will be.
I was curious as to why so many on here support Putin.
Seek and you will find:
‘That Russia serves as a reliable cash machine for Europe’s far-right political forces has long been an open secret.
‘….the country’s far-right National Front party had funded its election campaign with loans worth €11m from Russian banks. The party, which has since rebranded as presidential candidate Marine Le Pen’s Rassemblement National, has famously struggled to raise funds, with French banks declining to lend it money due to its racist and anti-Semitic past.’
‘Matteo Salvini’s far-right Lega party had struck an oil deal with Russia, which would see profits diverted to Lega to finance its 2019 European Parliament election campaign.’
‘the enthusiasm for Russian money was such that it brought down Austria’s ruling coalition. In a 2019 sting operation that came to be known as the ‘Ibiza Affairs’, Heinz-Christian Strache, Austria’s then-deputy chancellor and the leader of the far-right Freedom Party, was filmed trying to accept a bribe from a fake Russian oligarch
‘What did Russia get in return for this financial largesse? Political support at key moments.’
‘But this is not just about money. European conservatives – not only political parties, but also organisations opposing the rights of women and LGBTIQ people – share an ideological alignment with the ultra-conservative thinking prevalent in the Kremlin.’
‘Russian funding is not like other sources of funding – it is a reward for ideological alignment with Moscow and an incentive to advance Russian interests in the West.’
Open Democracy 06 April 22
More here:
EPF Tip of the Iceberg Report
They’ve been doing it for years, funding for ‘useful idiots’…..
What on Earth have the people ‘on here’ got to do with Le Pen’s RN Party, Salvini’s Lega Party, Austria’s Freedom Party, Uncle Tom Cobley and all?
Can’t win the argument, accuse your opponents of being dishonest.
Oldest trick in the book, and it’s certainly been used against the opponents of the illegal and/or disastrously stupid US sphere aggressions against Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name but the four most obvious.
No surprise to see it rolled out again.
And the Russian antics?…. not exactly squeaky clean!
Russia involved in Syria in any way?
With the agreement of the legitimate government.
No attempt to address the extremely well documented research paper referenced.
The silence is deafening; telling.
Ironic that Russia support far right causes in other countries, then uses the story of far right Ukrainians as a pretext for invasion.
No wonder the far right “sceptics” have a fondness for the Russian cause.
“I was curious as to why so many on here support Putin.”
Simple answer… they object to everything put out on MSM.
It’s their sworn duty.
I don’t object to this from MSM..
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/revealed-anti-oligarch-ukrainian-president-offshore-connections-volodymyr-zelenskiy
Volodymyr Zelenskiy has railed against politicians hiding wealth offshore but failed to disclose links to BVI firm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/11025137/Ukraine-crisis-the-neo-Nazi-brigade-fighting-pro-Russian-separatists.html
Kiev throws paramilitaries – some openly neo-Nazi – into the front of the battle with rebels
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/4363245
On patrol with the far right militia
all before the ‘great whitewash’ of course……
Anyone who is paying proper attention will know ‘Ukraine’ is just a fortuitous event that allows the USA & West to bang the anti-Russian drum, a hang-over from the Cold War demonisation of Russia and vilification of Russians as rather, crude, sub-Humans and a threat to the World.
The USA is afraid a prosperous Russia as an accepted, equal, active part of the global family of nations will challenge USA as numerous uno. It must therefore be kept down and the only acceptable regime would be a weak, subservient one that the US could manipulate like it did in Ukraine and other places.
I understand the so-called States effectively sponges off the rest of the world through the acceptance of U.S. dollars as reserve currency. I dare say there will be plenty of vested interests desperate to maintain this state of affairs.
‘… to antagonize Russia, with the aim of “overextending and unbalancing” the Russian economy and armed forces.’
Which is what allegedly the so-called (unworkable) US Star Wars initiative did, bankrupting the USSR trying to match it. Although it is not likely it played a significant part, but there are probably those in the CIA and elsewhere who like to believe it and want to repeat it.
Do as I say and join the ICC but don’t expect us to, and if you complain we will sanction you.
“On the outbreak of the First World War anyone who could speak in German was suspected on being a spy. Graham Greene was a schoolboy in Beckhamstead at the time. He later recorded in his autobiography, A Sort of Life (1971): “There were dramatic incidents even in Beckhamstead. A German master was denounced to my father as a spy because he had been seen under the railway bridge without a hat, a dachshund was stoned in the High Street, and once my uncle Eppy was summoned at night to the police station and asked to lend his motor car to help block the Great North Road down which a German armored car was said to be advancing towards London.”
Greene was not the only one to report dachshund dogs being attacked. James Hayward, the author of Myths and Legends of the First World War (2002) has pointed out: “Famously, dachshund dogs (although not apparently Alsatians) were put to sleep or attacked in the streets, a persecution which endured so long that in the years following the war the bloodline had to be replenished with foreign stock.” The reason for the hostility towards dachshunds was that at the beginning of the war they were seen as a symbol of Germany. Political cartoonists commonly used the image of the dog to ridicule Germany.”
https://spartacus-educational.com/FWWantigerman.htm
How we used to laugh at our ancestors for their foolishness, putting down dachshunds in WW1 because they were German.
Let that derision turn to well earned, self-directed collective shame:
Even Trees Are Political Now
“Drinkers are boycotting Russian vodka. Small and large U.S. cities are cutting ties with their Russian “sister cities.” And in one of the latest examples of symbolic efforts to isolate Russia from the rest of the world, a group in Brussels disqualified Russia’s candidate — an oak tree said to have been planted 198 years ago by the novelist Ivan Turgenev — from the European Tree of the Year competition.”
One of the best ‘home goals’…Smirnoff Vodka is owned by British company Diageo, and is made in England…so thanks for putting British people out of a job!!
Besides the unprecedented sanctions, and the literal stealing of Russian property, the ‘bans’ on Russian Paralympian’s, Tennis Players, Football teams, and F1. No Russian acts at Eurovision (LOL)….banned from Venice and Cannes film festivals, Tchaikovsky removed from several orchestras repertoire’s…etc..
says absolutely nothing about Russia and a great deal about the petty idiocy of the West.
Yes, greatly to our collective shame, imo.
I hope some of the excluders fall foul of the anti-discrimination laws. Expensively.
“No Russian acts at Eurovision (LOL)“
This should definitely be regarded as a perk of the invasion, for Russians.
Can’t we get banned? I mean, it’s not as though we haven’t attacked quite a few countries lately.
What must the Russians think of this?
In the depths of their anguish and suffering in WW2, they did not ban all things German.
I’m not a fan of “collective shame”, but in this instance I agree with you. I feel that shame, because I have a sense of myself a part of a great and beautiful English-speaking culture.
I’m appalled that so many are lending themselves to this disgraceful attitude towards Russia and Russians. Where is the leader who will stand up and say even something as simple as that their quarrel is with the Russian government, not with the Russian people or their culture?
As for the hypocrites who pontificate about “hate speech”, who are disturbed by the offence that incorrect pronouns might give, where are they as this vileness goes on?
Don’t remember sanctions and sports stars getting banned after NATO’s illegal intervention in Yugoslavia..or the lies of the WMD in Iraq……one rule for me…..
“Smirnoff Vodka is owned by British company Diageo”
Yes and is freely on sale.
Interesting trend here..
Each time the DS publishes an article relating to the war against Ukraine, the comments ratchet up one more notch in the direction of supporting/excusing the Russian invasion.
People talk about looking at the whole background, but don’t!
People get more focussed and selective in their “research” to back their view.
The impact of this echo chamber is interesting to observe.
First, remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother’s eye.
Matthew 7:5
Nonsense. Putin knows very well that NATO is no threat to Russia. The only reason he was against possible membership of Ukraine (and others) in NATO is because he is afraid to attack a NATO member state. He openly says that no Ukraine or Ukrainian nation exists.
Putin is very clear about what he wants. To restore the Soviet empire. If the Baltic states had not been in NATO, the Russians would have attacked them long ago.
Ukraine has made a big mistake in the past. It gave up nuclear weapons in exchange for a guarantee of security from Russia. If Ukraine kept the nukes it woul be safe now. I guess nobody will make the same mistake any more.
And now NATO will be much bigger and stronger and Russia will not be forgiven for decades.
It turns out that he has made a major blunder.
One of those points being made by the Western media about Putin trying to recreate Soviet Union… Very easy to disprove: out of all former Soviet republics, only 3 Baltic States are in NATO meaning that the rest are just sitting ducks ready to be swallowed by Putin into USSR 2.0. after 20 years in power, how many independent countries does the most evil dictator enslaved and now rules from Moscow? And there are many very big and resource rich (and people poor) out there. Much more lucrative than the Baltic states which don’t have much.
You better look up the meaning of proof.
What do you think his motives are then?
NATO on the Russian border is a red line, hostile and weaponised country with Nazi ideology in the military forces terrorising Russian part of the country is a red line. You can argue that he also tries to manufacture his own re election, but it doesn’t mean that other reasons are not there especially if Russians disagree with them, then they’ll obviously not re elect him. But it looks like the majority of Russians are now in support of this campaign.
It’s yours that are more of a problem.
Has Canada invaded Denmark in last twenty years? Has Argentina occupied the Falclands recently? Spain Gibraltar? Japan Russia? Spain Gibraltar? Spain Portugal?
No. Does that mean they don’t claim at least parts of their teritory? No.
Putin openly said there is no Ukraine but old Russia and staretd war to make it so. He openly said the fall of soviet Union was the greatest mistake and he wants to fix it and he hasn’t done much yet (thankfully for us who already lived under Russian occupation)
The Baltic states are obstructing the road to Kaliningrad . They are very important and lucrativ
Kaliningrad has only been Kaliningrad since the end of WW2. It was once known as Königsberg, the heart of Prussia. Perhaps Germany should ask for it back. Have we been here before?
Wow: that has to be the stupidest comment to appear here on this topic. You have obviously been drinking the BBC KoolAid in large draughts.
Nothing rots the brain faster than the beeb Kool-Aid. Of course most of those who watch it never had one in the first place, so no problem there then.
NATO was called into existence to counter the threat from the Soviet Union aka Russia. To a man like Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin, steeped in KGB lore, it is the enemy.
It is a mistake to think that Ukraine had nuclear weapons. Yes, there were nuclear weapons on its soil but they were firmly controlled by the Kremlin. You don’t just, by accident, pick up nukes in a functioning condition.
Absolute BS. NATO came into existence so that the USA could control Western Europe and promote ‘Reds in the Bed’.
The USA cannot exist as a nation without a bogeyman ‘enemy’. As soon as ‘Reds in the Bed’ ended, ‘Climate Catastrophe’ started. Then they started fomenting against Islam, now it is Russia and China again.
NATO exists because the USA cannot exist without perpetual war.
So what external wars was the USA involved in prior to being dragged into WW1 and WW2.
‘It’s that if the US had applied the same principles to Russia that it applies to itself (and its allies), we might have been able to prevent the war in Ukraine.’
Nope.
The only thing that would have prevented a Russian invasion of Ukraine would have been a credible conventional deterrent.
That would have meant a serious rearming of Ukraine and a NATO army corps in Poland.
And to those who say/said that would only antagonize Russia, it couldn’t have been any worse than what is happening right now.
Well…. not turning a blind eye to the annexation of Crimea could have changed things.
Also not doing nothing after Russia crossed red lines in Syria could have changed things.
The Crimea is historically and demographically Russian, not Ukrainian.
The Russians are in Syria with the permission of the Syrian goverrnment.
Australia’s concerns about Chinese military bases are entirely legitimate, because the bases in question are built on artificially-created islands, in disputed territorial waters. Directly contravening international maritime law.
A NATO base in Poland is entirely legitimate, because Poland is a member of NATO, and is entitled to do pretty much what it wants within its own, internationally-recognised, territory.
Are you conflating two things?
The Solomon Islands are a sovereign Country so are also entitled to do as they wish even if that means allowing China to build a military base…surely it’s no different to your example of Poland?
The man-made Islands in the South China Sea are an entirely different thing, and because there is no settled law that covers them I can’t see how they contravene international maritime law….the United Nations Convention of the law of the sea (UNCLOS) states that in relation to man made islands …..their position under general international law, however, remains unclear. In particular, the question of whether artificial islands can constitute sovereign territory remains unanswered.
Why don’t you ask about US military bases on the Chagos Islands, in the Stan republics, all over Africa?
When you have a black man high up in the US hierarchy virtue signalling saying that the US’ goal is to weaken Russia so it can’t ever go to war again, you know that they wanted this war to occur.
You weaken Russia via attritional warfare, economic looting and regime change.
They’ve failed to achieve the latter two the past 20 years, so the first is obviously their current preferred solution.
Oh, not again, Noah?! You’re turning the Daily Sceptic into the Mearsheimer Fan Club. I bet you really admire the Germans for making Putin feel appreciated in the West, too.
Your empathy with Putin, the paranoid war criminal, needs counselling, not media exposure.
How strange! No blame is apportioned to the country who actually invaded Ukraine and is trying to obliterate it.
The truth is if NATO had gone into Ukraine before the invasion, Putin would not have dared invade. The country would currently be at peace, no one dead, not a single city, town, village or building destroyed. At this very moment now as I write, all those poor souls who died in terror and in agony would be going about their normal happy peaceful lives.
In 1939 Britain should not have declared war on Germany for invading Poland lest it be accused of hypocrisy for invading a quarter of the world in earlier escapades.
Exactly right.
Just what did Britain acquire through military conquest as opposed to commerce?
I am a little concerned about Noah and the number of fellow travellers who think that Mearsheimer was right in 2014, he was not.
Only Putin’s fellow travellers make this ridiculous argument. Its fine to be anti-US or anti-EU or anti-Nato but its not fine to dress prejudices up as though they are anything more lofty than the product of self-loathing and manifest ignorance.
Insightful and accurate post which far too many ignore – yes you Toby
In the UK our Crime Minister Johnson is giving Ukraine everything it wants – why ?
Like Covid you eonder if there’s an underlying motive
What’s your underlying motive for being an apologist for Putin?
Surely this is not comparing like with like? China is a nation state whereas NATO is a defensive alliance of nations. China being in the Solomon Islands is not about defending but extending China’s influence. NATO in the Ukraine was about defence from Russia which latest events have demonstrated was a very reasonable fear. This invasion has not be caused by anyone other than Russia as NATO is not an aggressive pact.
Please make this available to all Daily Sceptic readers, and share far and wide. Toby would do well to read it also, as he is distinctly lacking in understanding of what is going on (come a bit closer to ‘Team James, Toby!)
https://www.the postil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/?s=09
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/?s=09
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/?s=09
Obama and Biden basically made the same threat to the UK over Brexit. They wanted us in the EU and would hit us economically if we dared ignore them.
When we went and did it anyway, they demanded the NI Protocol …. effectively giving the EU control of NI and breaking the Good Friday Agreement in the process.
Over the last two years, I have become aware of much un-trumpeted history of the 20th Century. Aware of, for example, Wall Street’s financing of the Bolshevik revolution, Corporate America’s involvement in the first Soviet five-year plan, the industrialisation of the Soviet Union and the transfer of technology during and after WW2. Aware also that Wall Street financed the rise of the failed Austrian painter. Aware too that Corporate America, in the shape of the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Soros’s Open Society Foundation is behind what we are currently enduring. Corporate America, which controls the current US administration, is not our friend. It never has been and the realisation comes as a bit of a shock.
A good piece by Noah. The US seriously f*ck*d up its handling of post-Soviet Russia from the start. We could have had much more congenial relations; Putin may not have arrive at his current psychopathic state or even not gained power in the first place. It’s a tragedy, for both the West and Russia.
There is an argument to be made on first principles in terms of supporting democracy and liberty, rather than the principle of national sovereignty. It would go that countries like China and Russia are not functioning democracies but autocracies, therefore, on principle, one should oppose their estsblishment of nearby military bases as those bases are not supporting the democratic rights and freedoms of those nations in which the bases are being built but supporting the spread of non-democratic power. The argument would further go on to say that Ukraine is a democracy and, therefore, a US/NATO military base or US/NATO weapons in a democratic country (like Ukraine) support that nation’s democratic rights and freedoms.
On the principle of national sovereignty, it is entirely within a democratic nation’s right of self-determination to impose sanctions on another nation. This alone does not impinge on the sanctioned nation’s national sovereignty.
These arguments has been made many times and would seem sound to me were it not for the fact that the USA uses its military and economic might to support and protect the most heinous of tyrants and non-democracies and (in the past) overthrow democratically-elected governments. It also, in imposing sanctions, interferes with other nations’ rights to associate with whomever they wish.
The problem is not that it is not possible to argue on first principles for building military bases and sending weapons to other nations while opposing other nations doing the same, the problem is that the USA (and Britain, for that matter) does not uphold its own supposed principles of democracy and liberty in its dealings abroad in that it supports tyrants and does not respect other nations’ freedom to associate and trade with whomever they wish.
One of the largest industries and source of power in the US is the military industrial complex. They need a sophisticated dangerous opponent. After the fall of the Soviet Union a new bogeyman was needed. The Middle East was not sophisticated enough. The vilification of Russia started several years ago even though Russia made every effort to become a part of the West. The EU is complicit in this policy as they benefit enormously from US Military protection & intervention.
Neocons do as the Neocons think. Despite all manner of packaging the US wants a New American Century; you can call it a New World Order or The Great Reset but it is global hegemony for all practical purposes. The US is to lead the Global economy indefinitely and to maximise the benefits which acrue to itself. Other nations, other people, other cultures are of secondary importance and can be dispensed with in the fullness of time. In the Anglosphere a lot of people support this idea, and the hubris over the war in Ukraine is a back marker to greater mischief going forward. After the Second World War the US was seen by a war-weary world as a jolly giant with a cornucopia of goodies for the rest of the World to enjoy provided of course, they renounced “Communism” and “Socialism”. Now we know differently and how the American public themselves have been well and truly put into harness, yet alone the rest of us.
‘Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault’
It has to be said: John Mearsheimer is a total numpty; many, if not most, of the comments here, the piece itself, completely dotty.
A totalitarian dictatorship has invaded a neighbouring democracy to avoid its own citizens looking enviously across the border. This happened with the USSR. It has been happening throughout history.
If you appease a totalitarian dictatorship, you simply encourage its rapacity:
‘the Bandera element is only a performer and a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, therefore the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.’
‘not just the Bandera version of Nazi Ukraine will be eradicated, but including, and above all, Western totalitarianism….’ (RIA Novosti 04 Apr 22)
And
‘“Control over southern Ukraine is another route to Transnistria, where there is also evidence that the Russian-speaking population is being oppressed,” Russian news agency TASS quoted Major General Rustam Minnekayev as saying.’
Wake up!
The only route back to deterrence is the route that European countries are now, belatedly, taking.
To those who say this will only make things worse, as in ‘Life of Brian’, with the man about to be punished by the high priest for saying ‘Jehovah’, the response must be:
‘How can I make it worse for myself? Jehovah! Jehovah! Jehovah!…….’
so the fact that the usa and australia would wage war against china if it were to place weapons on the solomons, is justification for putin to invade ukraine?
you were going to kick his dog, so i get to kick your dog?
and as always: remember the 298 passenger and crew of flight mh17, killed by russian military over ukrainian territory in 2014.
To Whom It May Concern
The curious use of the English language and overlong, aggressive, pro Putin bluster of many comments on here have an explanation.
Russian internet trolls based in an old arms factory in St Petersburg are targeting world leaders online and spreading support for Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
Online operatives are ordering followers to target western media outlets and politicians, according to research funded by the UK government, which is now sharing that research with major online platforms and other governments.
Many of these followers, ‘fellow travellers’, belong to fringe political organisations in Europe and elsewhere in receipt of funding from Putin’s Russian political agencies.
The headquarters of the ‘internet research agency’ is allegedly located in rented space in St Petersburg’s Arsenal Machine-building Factory, a company that manufactures military equipment and technology.
The ‘internet research agency’ belongs to Yevgheny Prigozhin
Prigozhin’s activities on behalf of the state have made him notorious……Prigozhin, senior employees and his company are all under US indictment.
Rumbled