It’s grown a bit today. Finland has joined the alliance.
I’m a bit bothered by that hole in the North — where’s Sweden? It seems they have applied to join NATO, but Turkey is being a pain in the butt, kind of a Minchin of Asia Minor.
But membership applications must be approved by all existing NATO countries. And Turkey positioned itself as a spoiler, with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan using the process to extract concessions and score domestic political points. Although he ultimately came around on Finland, he has continued to hold out on Sweden, citing Stockholm’s refusal to extradite those he calls “terrorists” affiliated with the militant Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.
Charles XII would not have been happy. There he was, in exile in Turkey, when he rushed back to Sweden specifically to make sure they wouldn’t make peace with Russians.
Eventually, in the autumn of 1714, their warning letter reached him. In it, those executive and legislative bodies told the absentee King that unless he quickly returned to Sweden, they would independently conclude an achievable peace treaty with Russia, Poland and Denmark. This stark admonition prompted Charles to rush back to Sweden.
He would have wanted Sweden to be part of NATO, I’m sure.
We won’t mention that when he got back to Sweden he decided to declare war and invade…Norway? Where he was killed? History is complicated. I think we can safely say we’re living in one of the more complicated times in history.
Can’t be glad about it to be honest. NATO should have been abandoned decades ago.
@1 – You are now a moderator of /r/Russia.
@1, “We must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”
I’d just as soon not be feeling what a Russian rope feels like.
Still, I am reminded of an ancient alleged curse, “May you live in interesting times”.
Boy, but I loathe interesting times.
I’m fully anticipating something triggering Article 6. Especially with the maniacal distribution of nuclear weapons to Belarus.
lasius @1: OK, I’ll bite. Why?
Rob Grigjanis @4
He’ll probably say it should’ve ended after the Warsaw Pact did or something along those lines. People who claim NATO “should’ve ended a long time ago” really never give a great explanation why.
Anyway, Finland is a great addition. They punch way above their weight (largely because of their neighbours to the east). The Baltic nations in particular will be delighted.
Surely Joe Manchin and not Tim Minchin?
As an European I have mixed feeling about NATO still being here, let alone expanding
On one hand, having the US empire as a protector is reassuring with an aggressive Russia. And the US benefits from it by selling us loads of weapons and putting pressure to increase the defense budget, aka give more tax payer money to Lockheed
NATO didn’t expand only because of US imperialism, but mainly because the central Europeans are scared of a Russian aggression and the Western European were glad to have more countries as a buffer on their east border.
On the other hand, being more or less a protectorate is kind of humiliating, the 2017-2021 period was scary and the 2024 election, while entertaining, could spell doom here.
NATO is a big obstacle to a real federal European Union which is something I thing would be better for us (but would mean a much bigger European military-industrial complex competing with yours, China’s and Russia’s, which the world really doesn’t need)
As for Sweden, even if they are not in NATO, they are fine now, with NATO on their eastern border. And the Baltic countries are better protected too, which was the goal
I think Swedish meatballs were inspired by a recipe the Swedish army learned during the period Charles XII spent in Turkey.
.
The inflamed relation between Sweden and Turkey got worse when a far-right kook burned a koran outside the Turkish embassy.
It is OK to burn whatever scripures you want, but he was not making a point of freedom of expression. He just wanted to trigger muslim immigrants.
.
The kook – a man named Paludan- came to Umeå, too. But our local muslims had figured him out.
They came to protest, but when he was about to burn the koran they just turned their backs on him and walked away. He did not get the violent riot he had been hoping for.
How convenient for NATO. How terrifying for the rest of the world.
@1 lasius is right. NATO is a warmongering alliance that is trying to push us into a nuclear war. Disbanding NATO is a priority for any serious antiwar coalition, and it should be a priority for anyone who doesn’t want all of humanity to die in misery and excruciating pain.
I go not fear that Russia will regain its strength before Sweden finally gets to join NATO.
If you want a realistic assessment of just how crappy the Russian armed forces are, check out the choleric postings by Lazerpig at Youtube. Holy s*¥#@t, it is corruption and garbage all the way.
@beholder #10
So far only one power has near constantly threatened to deploy nukes and it wasn’t NATO. So far only one nation is engaged in a imperialist war of expansion and subjugation and it’s none of the NATO members. So far only one nation has made huge strides towards fascist authoritarianism that preaches hate, intolerance and discrimination in the last year and it wasn’t a NATO member nation.
Your gaslighting is noted, tanky. It’s all you have left by this point.
The one gaslighting is you, AugustusVerger.
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-warns-putin-catastrophic-consequences-if-nuclear-weapons-used-ukraine-2022-09-25/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_occupation_of_northern_Syria
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recep_Tayyip_Erdo%C4%9Fan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Orb%C3%A1n
War was King Charles XII’s greatest hobby. I don’t think he would have joined NATO. He would have fought it.
Yeah, Erdogan bad, Orban bad. Putin much worse. Except to tankies, of course. Poor misunderstood Vlad, just looking out for his people (when they’re not sent to Ukraine as cannon fodder), and standing up bravely to Western Imperialism! Puke.
@beholder #10
Imagine that NATO did disband in the 90’s
Russia was kind of a mess, China was still a undeveloped country
The Balkan states were at war without any organized superpower to crush the conflict, and the central European country were discovering democracy while being afraid of Russia
“Good” scenario : the EU accepts the challenge and create a adopt a common military policy, bolstered by their success in stopping the Balkan Wars. France starts lending nukes to its neighbors to replace the US B61 bombs and the EU members don’t reduce their military budgets (you cost me a year of military service, thank you a lot). The European militarily-industrial complex grows a lot and starts having the same weight on EU policy than yours have on your government. Fast forward now, Russia think the EU is menacing Russia and invades Ukraine to block their accession to the EU.
With a bit of luck, this return to isolationism by the US prevents 9/11 and the war on terror. But the destruction of the Eiffel tower and Buckingham Palace by Al Qaeda starts the Afghan War anyway.
“Bad” scenario : the Balkan wars in the 90’s don’t stop and extend to Russia which intervene instead of NATO. Germany and Poland preemptively invade Kaliningrad and the EU countries start sending their armies in Poland. I’m there and die at the start of WW3
I’m still trying to figure out the point that the US warning Russia that if Russia nukes Ukraine is a nuclear attack or a first threat, rather than a customary warning that the use of nuclear weapons close to an ally is a no-no.
But then, I’ve never been good at doublethink.
If the Russians lay down their weapons, they go home, open a bottle of vodka, and see what is on TV.
If the Ukrainians lay down their weapons, they end up genocided, and disappear forever.
The invasion of Ukraine by Russia is about the clearest example of the battle of Light against Dark that we’ve seen in a long time.
There is no other side unless you want to support imperialism, countless atrocities, and genocide.
That a few in the West have chosen the Dark side along with Trump and Putin is unfortunate but not surprising. If the minor monsters among us didn’t exist, we wouldn’t even have a Dark side.
@Rob
Yeah, Putin is worse than Orban, therefore NATO good. Can’ you see nuance? Saying I don’t approve of NATO doesn’t mean I’m a Russia apologist.
@18 raven
And that is bullshit too. You don’t counter fascism with lies. Putin wants a buffer state with a pliable puppet gouvernment, control over gas pipelines and easy access to black sea ports. He’s a stone-cold nihilist realist asshole. He was involved in a genocidal war against the Chechens and bombed their cities to rubble and did the Chechens disappear? No, they are still here and now fighting against Ukraine, and there weren’t even 2 million of the in the first place.
There’s more than 40 million Ukrainians, he couldn’t make them disappear even if he wanted to.
There is no Battle of Light vs Dark, there’s only dark and slightly less dark. And which is which depends on which one is fucking you over more right now.
Putin is shit. Biden is Shit. Xi is shit. Erdogan is shit. NATO is shit. Imperialist nation states and their military alliances vying for their global interests are shit.
I know of 6.5 million people who were made to disappear in a shockingly short amount of time. But, apparently, that was dark vs dark to some.
Off of that bit started with an invasion of Poland via a false flag operation.
lasius @19: I do nuance all the time. NATO can be shit. Disbanding NATO is fucking stupid, dangerous shit. If you can get all imperialist nations to stop being imperialistic at the same time, we’ll talk.
Ask Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Latvians, etc what they think, and why they think it. For that matter, ask the Chechens who aren’t part of Kadyrov’s circle (those who haven’t been murdered by Kadyrov).
You don’t have to ask them about joining NATO or what they think about Russia.
They will tell anyone who listens that they hate and fear the Russians and why.
I’m near the Pacific ocean and even so, I know two people who were victims of the Russians.
My old friend was born in Konigsberg which is now Kaliningrad. His family was moved to Poland after the war and one day Russian soldiers took his father away. They never saw him again.
Another friend was a slave laborer in a Russian Gulag prison camp. His crime was not being Russian but being young and fit. He was never even charged with anything or given a trial.
The Polish and the Baltic peoples are particulary vocal.
We didn’t force anyone to join NATO. And anyone in NATO is free to leave at any time.
They all ran to NATO and joined as soon as they could and it was a wise decision.
I doubt if the Baltic nations would even exist today as independent countries.
“Tankie” is overplayed. I prefer bloodthirsty partisan hacks call me a “Saddam-lover”, thank you very much.
@12 AugustusVerger
NATO’s bloodstained history and participation in wars in Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria certainly count as wars of subjugation. Oh, I’m sorry, you added little qualifiers in there that automatically discount my examples. “So far only one nation has made huge strides towards fascist authoritarianism that preaches hate, intolerance and discrimination in the last year” is rich. I’m sure I could find examples (the United States, anyone?), but you would discount those too.
@16 euclide
Your alternate history is interesting, but ultimately speculation. Though I will point out that the choice between warmongering and national isolationism is needlessly limited. Global governance and global cooperation can and should be achieved without empires threatening to glass their enemies with overwhelming weaponry.
@17 wzrd1
Nuclear first strike is a policy discerned by posture, not necessarily an explicit document available to the public. Having more than a handful of nuclear weapons, on a scale approaching the thousands in possession of the United States, makes absolutely no sense unless its goal is to start a nuclear war and win.
It never takes a Darksider long to just flat out start lying.
Not only could the Russians make the Ukrainians disappear, they are busy right now doing exactly that.
They’ve been taking over other nations and ethnic groups for centuries and doing exactly that. By now, it is routine and they have it down so they don’t even have to look at their genocide manual.
Invade. Terrorize the local population. Instantly, several million or more refugees leave for wherever they can.
Kill all the leaders and intellectuals or drive them out as exiles.
Suppress their language and culture, also known as “aggressive Russification”.
It takes a while but eventually the Ukrainians as a distinct ethnic group and country would more or less not exist.
The key that the Russians learned is that you don’t have to bother killing everyone. Just kill a few million, drive out a few million, terrorize and control the population, and wait a few decades.
Proof.
Just look at what happened to Belarus.
Hardly anyone in Belarus even speaks the Belarusian language any more.
It is more or less a crime to even publish books in Belarusian.
Belarus is likely past the point of no return and almost totally absorbed by Russia.
Or Karelia. The Russian Republic of Karelia is now 86% Russian and 6% Karelian.
It’s likely that many of those self described Russians are Karelians who have been assimilated into Russian.
raven @23:
As was my paternal grandfather, and several members of my mum’s extended family.
If the Russians do anything well, it is genocide.
They’ve been trying to destroy Ukraine and Ukrainians as as separate people for centuries, with some success. At least half of all Ukrainians are native Russian speakers now including President Zelensky.
During the Soviet era, college exams in Ukraine could be in either Russian or Ukrainian. Only the ones in Russian would lead to a job offer.
One of their standard procedures is to kill or drive out the artists and intellectuals of the country. Stalin did it in Ukraine during his purges of the 1930s, the executed Renaissance.
They’ve done the same thing in Belarus,
“In October 1937, there was a mass extermination of Belarusian writers, artists and statespeople by the Soviet Union occupying authorities. ”
They did the same thing in the Baltics as well.
If you are carrying out genocide, poets, painters, and writers are major enemies.
In the occupied territories of Ukraine, the Russians today are gathering up books written in Ukrainian and burning them. They’ve already looted and destroyed all the museums and stolen what they wanted and sent it to Russia.
You can be sure, all schooling in the occupied territories will be in Russian.
@ raven
Yes, minority languages in Russia are disappearing at an alarming rate, but you aren’t going to make more than 30 million speakers diappear overnight. Also:
Speakers of native minority languages in the USA: around 370.000 at more than 330 million inhabitants.
Speakers of native minority languages in Russia: more than 30 million at around 140 million inhabitants.
Yes, Russia’s language policies are shit, but the USA has no high horse to sit on.
lasius @28, interesting. I hear Spanish spoken constantly in my Harrisburg, PA neighborhood. In my building, I’ve also heard Arabic spoken. Doesn’t seem like we’re stamping out any minority languages anytime soon. I also curse fluently in Sicilian Italian, Arabic and Hindi.
beholder @24, “Having more than a handful of nuclear weapons, on a scale approaching the thousands in possession of the United States, makes absolutely no sense unless its goal is to start a nuclear war and win.” Interesting viewpoint, given that Russia possesses more nuclear warheads than the US does, but they don’t get mentioned at all by you. Using your candle, obviously Russia, with more operational warheads, intends a first strike.
Rather than parity in the scheme of MAD.
@wzrd1
Those are not autochthonous languages, but languages brought to the USA by immigrants within the last 200 years.
Don’t we already have the example of Crimea for what Russia would do to an occupied region?
Okay, but could we at least wait until Russia is no longer trying to make us all die in misery and excruciating pain? Or are we pretending they’ll just stop on a dime if NATO disbands?
@32 LykeX
No. I have no reason to believe that people who want NATO around now would get rid of it later. The sooner it’s disbanded the better.
Putting it on the table would be a damn good start to peace negotiations. That is, if the United States is actually interested in saving Ukrainian lives instead of using them as cannon fodder to weaken Russia.
Well, appeasement served the world well when Chamberlain tried it.
Just think what joys and wonders a third world war would bring!
Wouldn’t matter much to me, as I’m effectively living at ground zero, due to my area being surrounded by military depots and communication nexus points. The only way I could be closer is if I built a house on top of Site R.
Putin is shit. Biden is Shit. Xi is shit. Erdogan is shit. NATO is shit. Imperialist nation states and their military alliances vying for their global interests are shit.
And you’re saying WE lack nuance? Go to bed.
That is, if the United States is actually interested in saving Ukrainian lives instead of using them as cannon fodder to weaken Russia.
Yeah, beholder is definitely a tankie. Please remind us what Ukraine were doing to “weaken Russia” before Russia chose to start a war with them?
Disbanding NATO is a priority for any serious antiwar coalition…
Jill Stein, is that you?
Seriously, how is NATO “pro-war?” I don’t remember all that many wars happening within NATO’s sphere since it was created.
Kindly take your stale old pro-Russia “antiwar’ shtick and shove it back where it came from.
beholder @33: And presto! Ukrainians can’t make decisions for themselves. They’ve been cleverly manipulated by the Great Satan to think they’re fighting for themselves.
So, let’s say your dream comes true, and NATO disbands. What would happen to the Baltic States? Easy question for a political philosopher of your obvious acumen.
And what reason do you have to believe that Russia would live up to any peace agreement made, once NATO was disbanded? When did Russia suddenly become so trustworthy?
To my mind, a “good start to peace negotiations” would be if the Russian army (and associated forces) fucked off back to their won country. In fact, I think that’s the only possible start to peace negotiations.
Yes, Russia’s language policies are shit, but the USA has no high horse to sit on.
So…no country ever has a right to defend itself, or defend an ally or potential ally, against blatantly immoral violence, unless it’s perfect?
Does that apply to Russia too?
Putin invades Ukraine under the bullshit claim that it’s worried about NATO expansion.
As a result, Finland decides it’s time to join NATO.
Putin is a master strategist.
lasius @30: “Those are not autochthonous languages, but languages brought to the USA by immigrants within the last 200 years.”
Indeed.
lasius @13:
The USA is not NATO any more than Spanish is indigenous American.
—
Honestly, I don’t get this anti-NATO stance some commenters exhibit.
Nor do Finland or Sweden, apparently.
@wzrd1 #34:
It did. It provided time for a massive boost in aircraft production, recruitment and training for the RAF. You might recall how close the combat margin came a few years later, in September 1940, over a year before the US finally was left with no choice but to get off its isolationist arse and stop listening to its Father Coughlans and its Charles Lindbergs.
numerobis: As Bill Maher said, if you don’t want your neighbors joining NATO, don’t be the reason you neighbors want to join NATO.
What a peculiar interpretation, Rich.
That time was available to all participants for a similar massive boost.
Meanwhile, the fascists prospered and expanded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement#History
The equivalent today would be to abandon Ukraine and give Russia all the territory it has claimed.
Putin would be quite satisfied, and that would be the end of it, right?
Right?
Like John Morales said, that gave everybody more time.
Not to mention the Wehrmacht didn’t have to fight through the Czechoslovakian defenses.
Then there’s the moral issues involved with selling another country up the river so your guys don’t have to fight.
feralboy12 # # 47: … the Wehrmacht didn’t have to fight through the Czechoslovakian defenses.
They brushed through what defenses Prague had quite easily. As they would have anyway, Britain having no way to send forces to CZ without, uh, fighting their way through Germany. Moreover, without the failure of Munich, much of the British population and elite would have remained under the illusion negotiating with Hitler might succeed.
Quite arguably, Chamberlain made the best of multiple bad choices. Biden, too, maybe (only hindsight can tell).
They brushed through what defenses Prague had quite easily. As they would have anyway…
I’ve heard that claim strongly disputed. CZ had plenty of mountainous terrain to seriously slow down a German invasion, and the Czechs seemed willing to fight, at least until British and French diplomats hectored and badgered them into giving up and not being so bothersome as to resist the West’s fantasy of “peace in our time.” If they had dug in and fought, as the Ukrainians chose to do last year, they might very well have burst Hitler’s “unstoppable evil genius” image, shown everyone else that resistance wasn’t futile, and even without British or French support they might have simply ended all that political/military/PR momentum that the Nazis’ campaign of conquest was building up. (And no, Britain and France would not have had to go through Germany to help the Czechs (though the Royal Navy could have gone around Germany); they could have simply attacked German forces somewhere else to further distract and drain German power.)
Raging Bee: of course the reason they care about whether countries join NATO is that they want their neighbours to be scared, and it’s hard to scare a NATO member.
Raging Bee: of course the reason they care about whether countries join NATO is that they want their neighbours to be scared, and it’s hard to scare a NATO member.
Handing Czech over to Germany on a silver platter also gave the Germans access to the substantial Czech war supplies and its heavy industry. Repurposed Czech tanks, the pzkw-35(t) and pzkw-38(t) constituted a substantial portion of the German tank arsenal in the first two years of the war. Selling out the Czech also enabled Stalin to strike a deal with Hitler which freed Germany of the specter of a two-front war for the time being and drove several smaller eastern-european nations into the German sphere of influence.
Revisionsts who claim that Chamberlain somehow made the best of a bad situation and was playing for time are only fooling themselves and Chamberlain’s actions contradict their claims, as he expressed outrage and surprise when Germany broke the Munich Agreement and gobbled up all of Czech leading to Britain doing an about face and giving Poland a full guarantee of independence and support. No, Chamberlain very much thought he had averted war for good when he had sat down with Hitler.
Appeasement made war more likely and strengthened Germany. It also added to Hitler’s prestige who had yet again seemingly scored another unbloody victory against weak western opponents. It also filled Hitler with contempt for said western opponents that he believed he could just repeat this game with Poland and the rest is history.
I hate computers.
AugusterVerger: and analogously Putin’s invasions of Georgia and parts of Ukraine caused so little stir, he figured he’d get away with taking all of Ukraine.
Raging Bee @ # 49: … they might very well have burst Hitler’s “unstoppable evil genius” image…
Hitler’s strength, and Putin’s weakness, had nothing to do with either of their images, but the effectiveness of their respective militaries. Goering, in charge of the Wehrmacht, kept his corruption personal and produced weapons and troops on or above par with any others in the world; Shoigu (& company) did the opposite.
… Britain and France would not have had to go through Germany to help the Czechs (though the Royal Navy could have gone around Germany); they could have simply attacked German forces somewhere else …
Yeah? Where? The only geographically feasible single-nation corridor options were Poland (explicitly too intimidated by Berlin to allow enemies of Germany passage) and Italy (need I say more?). Given the transport logistics available to the UK at the time, even if we posit friendly lines of access and full arsenals, assisting Czechoslovakia in ’39 would only have exposed & exacerbated British weaknesses.
Yes, we can list many serious drawbacks of what we now breezily call “appeasement” – but Chamberlain had NO good options; particularly if we accept he had primary responsibility for his own nation, not the whole world. (He would have done better not to have believed his own rationalizations, of course…)
The Putinists here are pretty transparent. NATO expansionism? In this reality, quite a few European countries have lived very happily outside NATO since 1949. Obviously the Eastern European and Baltic nations weren’t going to join until after the Soviet Dissolution. But amazingly, Croatia, Estonia, Czechia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia all willingly joined NATO within 10 years of independence. I wonder if the common denominator here was…I don’t know, being under Soviet occupation for half a century? Just a wild guess.
The countries currently trying to join NATO are Sweden, Finland (formally joined as of yesterday), Macedonia and Bosnia/Herzegovina. Interesting that none of them wanted to join NATO until 2022. Indeed, until last year public opinion polls showed the majority of these populations did not want to join NATO, and then after 2022 there was a sudden surge in popularity for joining NATO. What happened in 2022, I wonder? Must have been the well documented threat of invasion by NATO forces, right?
Now, if these idiots had just come along to say NATO is a problem that needs to be wound back as soon as possible, I would have no quibbles at all. NATOs involvement in Afghanistan, the Iraq Wars, and Syria show that it isn’t exactly a beacon of human rights or international law. But dismantling it now is like looking at all the problems with the British Army (literally as imperialist as one can imagine!) and demanding it be dismantled on September 2, 1939.
I’m reminded of both the Winter War and Continuation War. For those unfamiliar, Finland, having beaten back invading Soviet forces, with modest loss of territory and massive Soviet casualties, was essentially forced to ally with Germany against the Soviets for the Continuation War.
Basically, getting into bed with one devil to protect against depredations by another devil.
At least NATO isn’t quite a devil, even if the organization’s not exactly an angel.
Meanwhile, I suspect that Russia will begin a new offensive, as their online presence has been leaving some deep footprints all over the place and those usually presage military action. Although, given the low production rate of tanks by Russian factories and their ongoing losses, I’d be unsurprised to see them fielding children’s wagons in place of tanks fairly soon.
And possibly bringing back horses, but why not? Their current playbook looks nearly like a photocopy of their Winter War playbook, although with missiles now added to their artillery lineup.
And well, the old adage comes to mind, “Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t”.
Poor little Putin- all he wanted was pliant, puppet-goverment-run countries on its borders, and the nasty Ukrainians didn’t obey, so of course he had to march the army in to slaughter them. It’s their own fault for not bending the knee. I mean, it’s just a little genocide- why don’t they just accept it and move on? Like the Republicans say- it’s inevitable, so just lie back and enjoy it.
I seriously worry about folks here who whine- “It’s all NATO’s fault!!”
I also worry about how this war is going to end. If Russia gains territory from it, they’ll just wait a few years and then go for the next piece. If Russia doesn’t gain territory from it, it’s likely to be like the aftermath of WWI. Germans spend decades in denial that they legitimately lost, declared that they had been tricked and betrayed, and then surged forth for revenge as soon as they could. I’d hate to see Russians doing the same thing in thirty years.
NitricAcid, I see Russia using the playbook from the Winter War, oddly expecting different results, not learning from the first two war operations, where an initial success and puppet regime was installed, only to overreach and a high morale force, on their native ground, ground them down in terrific numbers.
Their failure in the end didn’t end up with a WWI sour grapes, just patient resolve for what is for their mindset, an inevitable future. Which the Finns recognized as well, hence their suddenly joining NATO. It’s not as if they had an Axis to align with for protection now.
Basically, a choice between a veritable buffet full of shit sandwiches and one chooses the least shitty one to bite into.
Again.
I am old enough to remember that the radical left was pro Russia and anti NATO and the right was anti Russia and pro NATO. It is surprising to see how the roles have reversed.
The “pro-Russia” crowd in Sweden was limited to a faction of the comnunist party.
But they tended to be lumped in with the nuclear disarmament crowd and with those skeptical of “rooting for dictators because they are our allies”.
Remember Mobutu? Ferdinand Marcos?
I don’t mind belonging to that particular crowd.
The “Putin is a great guy” crowd coincides with consistently horrible people, and I am not surprised they switched opinion. The Republicans who dislike Putin belong to the mostly sane branch of the party.
This update on the war is a month old, but the main points are still valid.
https://youtu.be/FWIzhP6G7S8
or
https://youtu.be/FWlzhP6G7S8
For some odd reason, I’m reminded of “Georgy Girl” lyrics.
And thinking, “the new Georgie girl”.
How about we stop orbital thinking and work on reality for change?
@ ^ wzrd1 : ?
Afraid, I don’t get the connection here to the song or understand what you meant by “orbital thinking” there. When thinking “orbits” I immediately think of them in the astronomical / space travel sense of that word which doesn’t seem toapply here? Sorry. Can you elucidate here please?
@ 1. lasius & Rob Grigjanis : “lasius @1: OK, I’ll bite. Why?”
Question seconded and notably still unansewered.
Putin seems like a cool, normal guy.
“Russian defector sheds light on Putin paranoia including secret train”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/05/russian-defector-sheds-light-on-putin-paranoia-including-secret-train
Old Vladimir has entered the late Nixon/standard North Korean/ Berlin bunker phase.
rietpluim: the radical left remains pro Russia, anti-NATO. They didn’t notice that Russia stopped being communist a few years ago.
The right has some authoritarian isolationists, always has. They want to rule a hermit kingdom and both admire Putin for being dictator and don’t want to deal with the rest of the world for any reason. They’re a bit louder these days because they had a president recently, but they’ve always been around. Most of the right likes blowing people up though, so they’re happy providing weapons to Ukraine.
OT
Arnault has grown 39 Bn $ richer only this year, reaching 201 billion $ today.
But I am sure he works very, very hard.
I’ve seen multiple different opinions on this but the objectively correct reason for Russia invading Ukraine is: Putin wanted it and he thought it would be easy and quick. So please, get rid of the all the other bullshit reasons. Had he known the difficulties, he would not have made the decision. Just look at how long it took him to drop the “special military operation” bullshit.
@numerobis – It’s the overton window. Society shifted so far to the right; the right radicalized while the left de-radicalized. Here in The Netherlands, radical left is virtually non-existent, while radical right holds ~20% of parliament.
I’m less clear on the European divisions but Italy and Poland both have far right parties in power shipping arms to Ukraine. And Finland just had an election with the top three parties score similar results, far right, centre right, and centre left, all three in favour of fighting Russia and joining NATO.
If Russia doesn’t gain territory from it, it’s likely to be like the aftermath of WWI. Germans spend decades in denial that they legitimately lost, declared that they had been tricked and betrayed, and then surged forth for revenge as soon as they could. I’d hate to see Russians doing the same thing in thirty years.
A LOT will depend on what the West does after the Russians are defeated or forced to stop trying to take more of Ukraine (for awhile). This is why I advocate decisive US or NATO action to hand the Russians a quick and unequivocal defeat; and then start a quiet but concerted economic-aid program for Russia so they don’t sink into such misery and chaos as to drive them to yet another wave of revanchism and imperialist nostalgia (something Bush Sr. should have led the charge with when the USSR fell apart).
Putin wanted it and he thought it would be easy and quick. So please, get rid of the all the other bullshit reasons.
Another reason I heard is that Putin saw the liberalization in Ukraine as a possible example for Russians to follow, and therefore a threat to his own power and his entire mental picture of what Russia is and should be. So he had to make an example of them, to keep his own people from getting any ideas.
@ ^ Raging Bee : Truth. Agreed. Here’s hoping now.
Exactly. I’ve opposed NATO for half a century, as an instrument of capitalist and US hegemony, and one whose military doctrine allows for the first use of nuclear weapons. I’d add the NATO intervention in Libya as another example of NATO’s misbehaviour: preventing Gaddafi retaking Benghazi and slaughtering much of the population was absolutely justified, and had UN approval. Overthrowing Gaddafi did not have such approval, and has left the great majority of Libyans worse off than before. However, given the current situation, if I lived in Finland, I’d be very glad the country is now a NATO member.
It really is possible to fully support the Ukranian resistance to Putin’s fascism*, and consider that NATO should have been disbanded in the early 1990s (as we were always told it would be if the “Soviet threat” disappeared) and a serious attempt made to construct an inclusive European security system instead of immediately embarking on NATO expansion (yes, I know eastern European countries joined voluntarily, but NATO was not obliged to admit them and doing so was bound to be resented by Russians of all political stripes and hence to strengthen revanchist forces). These forces were further strengthened by encouraging the sell-off of Russian Federation public assets to oligarchs at knock-down prices, turning Russia into a kleptocracy, and the destruction of the social safety net which the USSR, for all its brutality, provided. I recommend Gilbert Achcar’s The New Cold War (2022) for an analysis of how triumphalist US/NATO policy assisted the rise of Putin and pushed Russia and China into renewed alliance. And the same author’s contribution to Ukraine: Voices of Resistance and Solidarity** (2022), explaining why anti-imperialists must support the delivery of arms to Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions on Russia.
*I’m a member of the UK-based Ukraine Solidarity Campaign, which fully supports arming Ukraine, and also supports Ukrainian free trade unions and civil society groups against the neoliberal Zelensky government which has, for example, taken advantage of the war to push through laws allowing most employers to impose zero-hours contracts on their employees.
**Edited by Fred Leplat and Chris Ford, published by Resistance Books, London and Ukraine Solidarity Campaign.
birgerjohansson@68,
Let’s assume Arnault works 24 hours a day. By my reckoning, that gives him an hourly pay rate of around $4.45 million.
yes a nice idea and I hope we can help with the first part but unless we have some way to root out the endemic corruption in Russia as it is today any economic aid will be ineffective.
the idea of helping Russia survive the inevitable catastrophe seems self-destructive on the part of the free world. the realignment of all the territories that make up the federation also fraught with too many uncertainties to allow a peaceful sleep
we are on the horns of a dilemma and the future is not in any way assured except in the end we will all be dead at some point.
Giving monetary aid to Russia while its authoritarian power structure is still intact just means you are financing their next war where they will “avenge” the defeat they were “unfairly” dealt “humiliating” their nation. This won’t work. You don’t make lasting peace with a bully by mollycoddling them after you punched them on the nose. They will only remember the part where you punched them on the nose and made them look weak.
After the Soviet Union fell, the IMF did indeed send monetary aid to Russia to rebuild, but a lot of it was pocketed by corrupt officials, including a former small-time St.Petersburg crook turned KGB stool pigeon, who used that embezzled money to kickstart his political career which got us where we are now.
So no, I won’t support any aid to Russia after this war is over without Russia fundamentally changing. If the Russians hold onto the “good old ways”, I’d rather they have to make do with whatever pocket change they find under their carpets.
AugustusVerger, one could consider the frozen Russian foreign reserves akin to a hostage, worth $300B or thereabouts upon release.
Better than aid one actually has to pay for, after the war is over.
I would be happy to see NATO dissolved — it’s a tool of US imperialism, unfortunately — but only after the current Russian crisis is over.
Or maybe if NATO evolved into an entirely European treaty, with the US standing down and our military being pulled back.
@79: Depends on the situation after the crisis is over, whatever that means. Putin still in power? Still a shitload of potential crises if so. Putin kicked out, and replaced by other Russian imperialists?
When is a crisis over?
I’ve seen a lot of opinion about the Ukraine war, and I sense a consensus that Putin’s very regime’s continuation is tied to this war; Vlad Vexler in particular suggests that Putin actually needs this war to continue to sustain his regime. Basically, gearing-up for a forever war.
So, more than sunk cost.
This is not going to work. A “forever” war requires someone else to bleed for you and for you to be able to keep it simmering with minimal investment. Both factors are not applicable to the war in Ukraine. Not only are the Russians themselves bleeding, they’re doing it so profusely that they have to invest more and more material and manpower just to avert a total defeat. At the same time Putin’s attempt at energy blackmail cost them their most important market and since they are so desperate for funds, their remaining customers can pressure them to sell their goods at a large discount as the Russians can no longer afford to be picky. So Russia’s expenses have gone up and their income down. Plus the demographic crisis that was already spelling doom for Russia long before this war is only to get worse as able-bodied 20-40 year olds are either driven out of the country thanks to Putin’s heavy-handed overreach or end up maimed/dead in Ukraine.
A forever war in Ukraine is what Putin had 2014-2022, he decided to escalate beyond that and now there’s no going back to the status quo ante.
Don’t worry about Sweden. Sweden is a member of Partnership For Peace. An organization aligning neutral nations with the West against Russian aggression. They take part in military training exercises with Western European nations, and all their basic military equipment uses NATO compatible munitions. Sort of like NATO. Sweden sells advanced military equipment to NATO members. Sweden is about as close to being a NATO member as it can be without a formal membership.
Sweden is a European Union nation. Like NATO, EU nations officially have signed agreements that an aggressive military invasion of any EU nation is an attack on all EU nations. Most EU Nations are members of NATO. So attacking Sweden is pretty much attacking NATO itself.
Any Russian threats against Sweden will be rather empty threats at this point in time. Plus to get to Sweden, Russia would have to go through Finland, now a NATO member, which would soon get Russia into an official military confrontaion with NATO. Not a good idea.
Of relevance:
I would be happy to see the United Nations moved outside the USA.
Who is going to take over when Putin dies?
chigau, Putin has ensured that no viable candidates exist.
Putin isn’t immortal. Whenever and however he dies, he will die. So. What then for Russia?
It will change, StevoR.
How it will change depends on future circumstances.
Specifically, as you put it, when and how he dies.
Anyway, this is about how Putin has caused NATO to be energised and revitalised and expanded. Good job, there!
@ chigau (違う) : “I would be happy to see the United Nations moved outside the USA.”
The UN is pretty flawed and ineffective. Its location is the least of its issues. As it is the UN is pretty hamstrung and broken and ineffective. Fixing the veto power – removing it or making it overrideable – and having some better criteria and making it something other than toothless and easily skirted seem more important to me but yeah. I don’t see why not although where you’d move it too and why that new spot I’m not sure.
Seems more important to ensure that for instance things like Russia becoming President of of the UN Security Council (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65146557 ) don’t happen, that corruption and abuses scandals by UN workers are addressed and more. I think there’s considerable good in the idea of something like the UN even a proper planetary govt and some of its work and bodies is excellent e.g. but as it currently exists and works, well, it really needs some very major reforms.
^ better criteria for membership ie not just dictatorships having so much say..
Heh. NATO was established because the League of Nations was (most evidently) not fit for purpose, and the UN is not much better than that.
(Layers upon layers)
This is a followup to the Russian genocide of Ukraine and Ukrainians from around comment #25.
Medvedev is a (likely drunken) internet troll.
He is also the former President and former Prime Minister of Russia and now the deputy head of their National Security Council.
The Russians aren’t even bothering to hide their plans to genocide Ukraine. Just ask them about it and they will explain it in great detail.
It is obvious that every sentence he wrote is wrong.
It is for sure that no one needs or wants Russia either. If Russia disappeared tomorrow the world would be a far better place.