Putin recognizes the independence of Donbass

[muhammad_isa]

So, in the final analysis, what we have here are ultra religious fanatics and capitalist megalomaniacs trying to tell us that Russians are bad people.

That's nonsense.
Again, you try to make it about race/people rather than ideology.

It is clear to me.There is strategic advantage in conquering others .. ruling others .. taking over their lands.
Capitalist philosophy uses economics to keep other nations "under the thumb".
Communism is a direct result of oppression, and involves military aggression to achieve power and wealth.

Both philosophies are purely concerned with the advantages of power in this worldly life, and neither can prosper in the long run.
Peace can only be achieved by taking heed of truth.
That is not marxism .. nor any other ism.

However, history shows us that angry nations that are oppressed and become extreme right-wing, cannot succeed. Nationalism is racism. It reminds me a bit of football supporters brawling over their "team".

 

[Stevicus]

Surely, you are not that naive.

No, but it's a practical idea, if we're looking at this issue strictly from our own pragmatic national interests.

As far as being naïve, that's in the eye of the beholder. I've always found it fascinating how conservative warmongers during the Cold War would chastise so-called "bleeding heart liberals" for wanting to help people here at home. Even today, I hear how "Social Justice Warriors" are lambasted for much the same reason.

Yet, all of this is somehow reversed when it comes to geopolitics. Then, suddenly, the heartless capitalists and conservatives inexplicably start caring about others, as long as they're on foreign soil. They're the SJW's and bleeding hearts of geopolitics. They care nothing about the homeless on the streets of America, but when it comes to some helpless people on the other side of the planet, suddenly they care.

Do you think I'm so naïve as to not be able to see through that?

How long did it take before US decided to take action in WWII?

FDR wanted to take action sooner, but faced a great deal of opposition from those who wanted to stay out of it. There are several reasons for this, some of which go back to the principles upon which America was founded.

Isn't it preferable to stop countries from military aggression against their neighbours, before it gets out of control?

I suppose a case can be made for such, but it largely depends upon the circumstances and the context. For example, the Franco-Prussian War of 1871 was a quick six-week war which didn't get out of control. It ended quickly, with the capture of Napoleon III and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by Germany. Maybe some other country might have stopped Germany, but the fact that no one did, that didn't lead the situation to get out of control. Europe and the rest of the world have gone through many, many wars - most of which did not require the US military to come in and restore order.

Of course, another question might be asked: Isn't it preferable for countries to be able to defend themselves so that they don't have to worry about military aggression from their neighbors? This is not an unreasonable question, as both Britain and France had sizable populations, modern industries, and huge empires teeming with resources and manpower to be able to wrap up Germany rather quickly, without help from either the Russians or the Americans. Why were they caught so woefully unprepared?

This seems to be a common narrative, where the US points out some "bully" who picks on some weaker "pipsqueak" of a nation, thus turning the US into a white knight to come in and rescue the damsel in distress. But why is the damsel in distress in the first place? Nobody ever asks that question.

Why is Ukraine not strong enough to defend itself? Especially if they're so worried about being bullied by their larger neighbor. Russia is certainly not invincible, and they are nowhere near as strong as they were during the Soviet period. So, why should we have to get involved at all? Just because other countries don't want to lift a finger in their own defense?

Are you saying that NATO is defunct .. unnecessary?

The reason for forming NATO was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the potential spread of communist revolutionary ideology. It was purely ideological. Once the Warsaw Pact disbanded and the Soviet Union broke up, the original pretext for NATO's existence was no longer relevant. It should have been disbanded in 1991, but the fact that it was not could be interpreted as an act of aggression against Russia, which peacefully and unilaterally chose to stand down in good faith. They acted in good faith, but our government did not. That's why the Russians have grudge against us now.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Europe and the rest of the world have gone through many, many wars - most of which did not require the US military to come in and restore order.

There is no talk of US military getting involved. Ukraine is not part of NATO.
However, NATO countries are affected by what goes on in Ukraine.

Why is Ukraine not strong enough to defend itself? Especially if they're so worried about being bullied by their larger neighbor. Russia is certainly not invincible, and they are nowhere near as strong as they were during the Soviet period..

You just don't see it, do you.
US has been a major superpower for some time now, but Russia and China realise that you can't be "top dog" forever more.
They see their chance. As far as they are concerned, the US has been oppressing others, and now they intend to oppress you to get their own back.

The reason for forming NATO was to protect Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the potential spread of communist revolutionary ideology. It was purely ideological. Once the Warsaw Pact disbanded and the Soviet Union broke up, the original pretext for NATO's existence was no longer relevant.

I think you'll find that it is indeed relevant.
What do you think keeps currencies stable?
If the world is not secure, no currency is exempt from instability.
It is no accident that Russia has chosen to act before economies recover from covid.

 

[Stevicus]

That's nonsense.
Again, you try to make it about race/people rather than ideology.

Not at all, but I don't generally believe the standard Western ideological premise that "it's all about freedom." I think they use ideology as a convenient pretext to be able to justify whatever they want to do, but we know that they're being disingenuous because they are not consistent in this regard. If our government stood up to every act of aggression in the world and opposed every authoritarian government, then that would be different.

But until they do, they're lying through their teeth when they say "it's all about freedom."

It is clear to me.There is strategic advantage in conquering others .. ruling others .. taking over their lands.
Capitalist philosophy uses economics to keep other nations "under the thumb".
Communism is a direct result of oppression, and involves military aggression to achieve power and wealth.

Both philosophies are purely concerned with the advantages of power in this worldly life, and neither can prosper in the long run.
Peace can only be achieved by taking heed of truth.
That is not marxism .. nor any other ism.

Communism was a direct reaction to capitalist and imperialist abuses. That's why I don't have much sympathy for capitalists who claim that they're oppressed under communism, since they brought it upon themselves. If capitalists ever learned how to become decent human beings, there would have been no communist revolutions and no need for most of the world's misery. It all goes back to human greed and the idea that some people think they're better than others. Communism is egalitarian and doesn't believe that any humans are above any other.

However, history shows us that angry nations that are oppressed and become extreme right-wing, cannot succeed. Nationalism is racism. It reminds me a bit of football supporters brawling over their "team".

Nationalism, racism, and capitalism justify themselves through natural law and social Darwinism. Despite the variations, they're all within the same ideological ballpark.

But I wouldn't say they cannot succeed. History has shown that they can succeed quite well for centuries. The Roman Empire lasted for centuries. The Mongol Empire lasted for centuries. Britain, France, and America were expansionist, racist, capitalist, imperialist powers which are still powerful and successful today. On what historical basis do you say they cannot succeed?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Communism is egalitarian and doesn't believe that any humans are above any other.

Communist philosophy is a pipe-dream.
It doesn't exist in reality. What we have are states where those in control claim that they have no wealth, like the rest of the nation, but in reality are "milking it". That's because it is a false ideology.
There is nothing wrong with the means of production being in private hands .. in fact it is fairer.
The evil lies in the financial system, and not private enterprise.

Britain, France, and America were expansionist, racist, capitalist, imperialist powers which are still powerful and successful today. On what historical basis do you say they cannot succeed?

G-d gives sovereignty to whomsoever He wills, and takes it away from whomsoever He wills.
Civilisations rise and fall. Events are speeding up in these modern times. The world is on the precipice of great change.

 

[Stevicus]

There is no talk of US military getting involved. Ukraine is not part of NATO.
However, NATO countries are affected by what goes on in Ukraine.

We may not be directly involved in Ukraine, but we're still involved. My only point in this part of the discussion is that the U.S. does not and should not be considered an indispensable component in this.

You see, I've had this same discussion many times before, and I'm always faced with the same argument: All these other countries are too weak to defend themselves, so therefore it's America's responsibility to go and save them from the boogieman.

You just don't see it, do you.
US has been a major superpower for some time now, but Russia and China realise that you can't be "top dog" forever more.
They see their chance. As far as they are concerned, the US has been oppressing others, and now they intend to oppress you to get their own back.

You think it's all about being "top dog"?

I'm not worried about America being a superpower, and I never subscribed to concepts related to American exceptionalism.

In any case, you ducked my question: Why is Ukraine not strong enough to defend itself? You say that I "don't see it," but what I see is that Americans are being asked to support yet another foreign war because yet another damsel is in distress. It's a familiar pattern which I've seen over and over and over.

Also, it should be noted that America being the "top dog" does nothing for America. It helps the wealthy in the international business community, but America's government is broke and deeply in debt, while the average citizen has to struggle to survive.

We would have been far better off if we behaved more like Switzerland. They've remained neutral all along and have been doing quite well. They have a very high standard of living. They're not the "top dog," but then, they never felt the need to be.

I think you'll find that it is indeed relevant.
What do you think keeps currencies stable?
If the world is not secure, no currency is exempt from instability.
It is no accident that Russia has chosen to act before economies recover from covid.

The world has changed in the past 30 years, yet some people are still fighting the Cold War. Our policymakers and military planners can't seem to break out of that mode of thinking.

At the end of the Cold War, the big talk was about the new "global economy," coupled with the belief that the world would be more stable and peaceful. The US even chose to ignore the atrocities of the Chinese government in order to promote stronger trade ties with that country - because (to US capitalists) money is always more important than principles. Russia was no longer a threat at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union, and in fact, after the opening of the Soviet archives, people found out that the Soviet military was never as powerful as US propagandists had been proclaiming. They had been grossly exaggerating Soviet military capabilities for decades.

The fact that Russia and Eastern Europe were now capitalist and open to commerce on the global economy should have had some effect on global stability.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what I see is that Americans are being asked to support yet another foreign war because yet another damsel is in distress..

Fortunately for USA, Biden isn't as short-sighted as you are.

Also, it should be noted that America being the "top dog" does nothing for America. It helps the wealthy in the international business community, but America's government is broke and deeply in debt, while the average citizen has to struggle to survive..

That says more about corruption in the financial system, than anything else.
..and who is responsible for that, other than US citizens?

We would have been far better off if we behaved more like Switzerland. They've remained neutral all along and have been doing quite well. They have a very high standard of living..

..and that's the problem. You have a bone to pick with your fellow Americans, and therefore have a distorted view of what is really happening.
One cannot put their nation right, by ignoring what is going on in the rest of the world.
If it ever comes to the point where US needs help from Europe, what then?
..and don't think that that could not happen, because you haven't really got a clue, imo.

 

[Stevicus]

Communist philosophy is a pipe-dream.
It doesn't exist in reality. What we have are states where those in control claim that they have no wealth, like the rest of the nation, but in reality are "milking it". That's because it is a false ideology.
There is nothing wrong with the means of production being in private hands .. in fact it is fairer.
The evil lies in the financial system, and not private enterprise.

There is nothing wrong with the belief that all human beings are equal and that all human beings have rights. Capitalists justify themselves through social Darwinist principles of natural law, similar to that of nationalists who believe that only the strong should survive. We need to rise above such primitive thinking, and socialism and communism offered a path for humanity to take. But I guess humans just aren't ready for that yet.

G-d gives sovereignty to whomsoever He wills, and takes it away from whomsoever He wills.
Civilisations rise and fall. Events are speeding up in these modern times. The world is on the precipice of great change.

I suppose anything is possible. I've heard some believers in God say that God gives humans "free will," which suggest that any evil that exists is the result of choices made by humans, not by God. But you're saying that God is deciding who rules, which countries win wars, and which empires rise and fall?

 

[Stevicus]

Fortunately for USA, Biden isn't as short-sighted as you are.

Time will tell.

That says more about corruption in the financial system, than anything else.
..and who is responsible for that, other than US citizens?

Yes, the kind of citizens who are duped at every election and fall for a lot of loud talk from politicians like Biden - the kind that you believe are "fortunate" for the USA.

..and that's the problem. You have a bone to pick with your fellow Americans, and therefore have a distorted view of what is really happening.
One cannot put their nation right, by ignoring what is going on in the rest of the world.
If it ever comes to the point where US needs help from Europe, what then?
..and don't think that that could not happen, because you haven't really got a clue, imo.

Look, I don't know who you are or where you're coming from on this. You say you're from the UK, yet you presume to lecture me about my own country and government. You also presume to lecture me on how the Russians think, as if you can read their minds and know what they're planning.

I encountered this a lot during the Cold War, when I ran into so many people who couldn't read beyond a third-grade level or point their own state out on a map, yet they somehow knew what the Russians were secretly planning and fancied themselves as experts on history, economics, political science, and geopolitics. And they told me that I didn't have a clue. What arrogance, especially from people who clearly had no idea what they were talking about.

In any case, I didn't advocate ignoring the rest of the world, just that we shouldn't get so deeply involved in it. The portion you're quoting here is in response to your statement about the US being the "top dog" and how Russia and China are now vying for that role because they see their chance. My only point here is that Americans would be better off if we were just an ordinary country, not "exceptional," no "Manifest Destiny," no "American Dream," or any other loads of BS that the flag-wavers keep spewing out. It's that kind of brazenly arrogant chauvinism that tends to rub other countries the wrong way, even including many Europeans I've spoken to on this topic. I've talked to many Europeans about how fed up they are with American hegemony and interventionism.

As to your question "If it ever comes to the point where US needs help from Europe, what then?" I suppose it would depend on what we need help with. We already trade with Europe. We do commerce together. We exchange information and academic knowledge, as we have a shared value in freedom of the press and the free flow of information and communication (just as we're communicating now from different countries). This would not change, even if the US takes a more neutral stance on global affairs.

Our own hemisphere has been relatively peaceful compared to the Eastern Hemisphere. Even Cuba seems pretty tame these days.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The portion you're quoting here is in response to your statement about the US being the "top dog" and how Russia and China are now vying for that role because they see their chance. My only point here is that Americans would be better off if we were just an ordinary country, not "exceptional," no "Manifest Destiny," no "American Dream," or any other loads of BS that the flag-wavers keep spewing out..

It's too late for that now. We have to deal with the real world. All of us.

Our own hemisphere has been relatively peaceful compared to the Eastern Hemisphere. Even Cuba seems pretty tame these days.

Don't go to sleep .. keep alert.
..I mean everybody who values democracy and their liberty to govern themselves.

 

[Stevicus]

It's too late for that now. We have to deal with the real world. All of us.


Don't go to sleep .. keep alert.
..I mean everybody who values democracy and their liberty to govern themselves.

Well, of course we have to deal with the real world, but you said it yourself: America can't be the "top dog" forever. But even in the centuries before America became the top dog, the world seemed to get by just fine without our involvement. If America somehow ceased to exist, I'm sure the world will get by without us.

I think I'll sleep pretty well tonight.

As for democracy and the liberty to govern oneself, it is what it is. Our government is only as good as the voters want it to be.

 

[Estro Felino]

I struggle to figure out the basis of the West's hatred of Russia. It can't be because they're authoritarian or that they've invaded other nations, since we've given a pass to other nations which have done the same things. So, there must be some other reason for the West's hostility.

Many Americans I've known tend to look at geopolitics through the lens of Bible prophecy, believing that America has some special role to fulfill for God. And in Christian Europe, the schism between the Eastern and Western Churches has been a sore point for over a millennium.

Some have mentioned that the real cause is due to economics and Western capitalists wanting to go into Russia to loot and pillage. This is also possible, but it seems extremely unlikely since the standard Western policy has been to bribe or prop up tinpot dictators around the world to exploit their resources. From that point of view, it should be far cheaper to bribe Putin than go to war with him.

On the other hand, during the Cold War, capitalists were poised to launch a nuclear war and exterminate all life on the planet, all because they were deathly afraid that they might have to live in the same neighborhoods as the...(ugh)...commoners.

So, in the final analysis, what we have here are ultra religious fanatics and capitalist megalomaniacs trying to tell us that Russians are bad people.

Yes...I am more and more convinced it's all about the money.
Selling weapons and tanks...you know...

We are a pacifist country.
The peace propaganda is anywhere here. Europe is at peace since 1945.
But we Europeans are all hypocritical since we produce weapons, military ships, tanks and sell them to the Middle East.

 

[metis]

We are a pacifist country.

No, you're not, as Italy is a member of NATO.

BTW, my father-in-law fought on the Italian side during WWII but was captured by Montgomery's forces in north Africa and spent about 4 years in an English POW camp.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

You know...Chernobyl.

Designing reactors with inadequate safety measures.

And speaking of that, are they actually fighting around that thing now? That doesn't seem all that safe

 

[Revoltingest]

And speaking of that, are they actually fighting around that thing now? That doesn't seem all that safe

We can only hope that they're just using small arms,
& not risking compromising the containment system.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I wasn't saying anything about who has the right to a name or a populace. That's beside the point.

A lot of people are trying to oversimplify this and make it all about Putin, as if he's just some kind of crazy man or wannabe Hitler who just wants to cause trouble and make war all over the world. There seems to be a lot of people who believe this, and I've noticed some level of irritation from those who are upset by people who don't believe that Putin is an imbecilic madman.

I view Putin foremost as a nationalist who I think was deeply impacted by the breakup and fall of the USSR.

To watch your country fall like that, i can see his personal motivation for unification to bring Russia back together as a whole country or much as possible as it used to be.



A bit like Lincoln who during the Civil War put down the rouge southern states and brought them back into the national fold.

 

[Stevicus]

I view Putin foremost as a nationalist who I think was deeply impacted by the breakup and fall of the USSR.

To watch your country fall like that, i can see his personal motivation for unification to bring Russia back together as a whole country or much as possible as it used to be.

A bit like Lincoln who during the Civil War put down the rouge southern states and brought them back into the national fold.

Yes, Putin is definitely a nationalist, and nationalism tends to be a malignant, toxic, warlike way of thinking. Nationalism begets nationalism.

The boundaries of the Soviet Union were similar to that of the Russian Empire, except the Russian Empire had even more, as it also included Poland and Finland. I don't know if Putin believes that Russia should have what they had before, but I suppose anything is possible at this point.

The real shame of it all is that we had a golden opportunity to start fresh with Russia after the fall of the USSR. If we had dealt with them fairly and honestly from the outset, we probably wouldn't even have to worry about any of this now.

But we're talking about US politicians here. Most Americans hold contempt for their politicians and rightly see them as mendacious and slimy, and the only reason they vote for them at all is because the other candidate is even worse. These are the people who represent us, who represent America to the rest of the world. America is often called the leader of the free world, yet who do we elect to fulfill such an important role? Trump? Biden? Hillary? (I'm glad Hillary is not President. We'd all be radioactive now.)

 

[Estro Felino]

No, you're not, as Italy is a member of NATO.

BTW, my father-in-law fought on the Italian side during WWII but was captured by Montgomery's forces in north Africa and spent about 4 years in an English POW camp.

Our Constitution says we cannot attack unless we are attacked.
We are in the NATO...but as a jurist I can tell you that since no NATO member has been attacked, we cannot attack anyone

 

[metis]

Our Constitution says we cannot attack unless we are attacked.

If one belongs to NATO under treaty obligation, they commit to either go by a joint decision or they withdraw from the organization as the forces work as 1 unit, not many.

BTW, there was an on-line meeting between members of NATO within the last two days, and Sweden and Finland were present, although it wasn't announced in which capacity. I'm sure my relatives in Sweden are very worried about what Putin may do next.

We are in the NATO...but as a jurist I can tell you that since no NATO member has been attacked, we cannot attack anyone

Italy could on its own if it wanted to, but you wouldn't automatically have any NATO cooperation.

 

[Estro Felino]

@metis


No. It is forbidden by the article 11 of our Constitution.
Italy cannot attack anyone. Italy has started no war throughtout the last 75 years.