Youtube comments of andy99ish (@andy99ish).
-
7800
-
1200
-
916
-
701
-
494
-
410
-
374
-
324
-
251
-
231
-
198
-
181
-
178
-
163
-
156
-
136
-
121
-
112
-
99
-
96
-
77
-
75
-
73
-
63
-
62
-
60
-
60
-
58
-
58
-
57
-
57
-
56
-
54
-
49
-
48
-
48
-
47
-
45
-
44
-
44
-
43
-
42
-
40
-
40
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
39
-
38
-
38
-
38
-
37
-
36
-
36
-
36
-
35
-
33
-
32
-
30
-
30
-
30
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
29
-
28
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
27
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
26
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
25
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
24
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
23
-
22
-
22
-
21
-
21
-
21
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
19
-
@ryanrusch3976 Feud did not bring aristocrats to spew vitriol on the enemy, like Wilhelm does in this movie scene. In reality there was belligerence but at the same time a strong spirit of chivalry. Even though the idea to hate one's enemy was (re)born in WW I, it certainly was not driven by aristocrats. Even less so, when they were related with (other) ruling Houses – and many of them were.
It is true, that Wilhelm was pushing the young Second Reich and that this (in accordance with the thinking of his times) included trying to apprehend some colonies in a world which was already quite parcelled. And indeed Wilhelm was no Anglophile (I guess you meant that and not "Anglophone"). But not being an Anglophile is one thing, hating the English is another and allowing your personal feelings to degrade yourself with unchivalrous utterances is still another.
As you mentioned the prewar German-British rivalry for maritime power, let me give you strong indication, that this rivalry did not result in hatred either: Actually the news of the Sarajevo assassination broke when ships of the Royal Navy visited the Imperial Navy in Kiel. According to Churchill's "The World in Crisis" "there were races, there were banquets, there were speeches [...], "there was the Emperor"; "officers and men fraternized", "strolled together through the hospitable town (Kiel)" and "dined together with all goodwill in mess and wardroom". Again, this was late June 1914, well after Agadir.
Re de-liberalization: German liberalism existed in its own right. If anything it was stimulated by Napoleon’s early XIX century endeavours on German soil. Now the House of Hohenzollern detested German liberalism even before Wilhelm was born (see their reaction to the revolution of 1848). Referring specifically to Wilhelm: Not allowing your hereditary anti-liberalism to be changed by your British educated mother is one thing, hating the British another.
To sum up: Wilhelm II was a weirdo and an imbecile when it came to foreign policy. But he would not speak to his officers in the way this clip suggests. Therefore I uphold my qualification of it.
18
-
18
-
18
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
17
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
16
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
15
-
14
-
Your style is vitriolic. I suggest you change that and I will deliver you a more realistic picture: When a country tries to join a military alliance, which is inimical to their neighbor, then this neighbor will considered that move to be a threat. If strong and determined enough, the neighbor will act. Just look at the post-WW II precedent with Cuba, which was illegally blockaded by the US for trying to exercise its sovereign rights, which you hold to be sacred. Re NATO: That this alliance was kept running after having outlived its once noble mission, is starting point of problems. Wanting to justify its further existence, NATO treated Russia like an enemy, encircled it and now argues that the Russian reaction is the justification for threatening Russia in first place. A self-fulfilling prophecy, benefiting the US weapons industry at the cost of US taxpayers. Who are being served with yet another story of nation building and fostering democracy. And, just as in colonial times, with naive natives pay the price in blood.
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
A useful framework to think about European attitudes towards Russia might look like as follows: There are 3 belts of EU/NATO countries and one group friendly to Russia since centuries:
Belt 1: countries in immediate proximity to Russia and afraid of its unprovoked aggression: Baltic, Finland, Sweden, probably Norway.
Belt 2: countries more afraid of provoking Russia than fearing its unprovoked aggression: Germany, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Austria, Romania, Turkey, probably Slovenia, Croatia.
Belt 3: all other to the West (France, Benelux, Italy, Iberian, British Isles), who aren't really afraid of Russia.
Traditional Russophiles: The predominantly orthodox, ex Osman countries of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, North Macedonia.
Now one could debate about specific countries, including these EU/NATO countries I have left out.
Yet in my assessment the big picture is valid enough to predict, that there will be no common European policy towards Russia.
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
Eastern Europe is orthodox Europe - Russia with its satellite Belarus, Moldova, Serbia, Romania, Northern Macedonia, the European parts of the Caucasus (the latter two with Muslim spots).
Central Europe is Germany, Austria, Slavic nations of Latin Christianity (Poland, Czechia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia), Hungary and Northern Italy. So roughly Germany plus the late Habsburg empire. However North-Western parts of Germany (set apart by the so called tea-coffe line) and its hanseatic cities (e.g. Hamburg) are rather Western than Central Europe.
Mixed cases: Switzerland (Central/Western), Ukraine (Central/Eastern), Bosnia and Herzegovina (Central/Eastern).
Cases escaping that categorization: Southern Italy, Albania, Montenegro, Greece in the South, the Baltic nations and Finland in the North.
You can see many conflicts of Central vs. East in the Slavic domain: Poland vs Russia since centuries, Bosnia in WW I, Bosnia internally, Croatia vs Serbia and now Central Ukraine vs Eastern Ukraine and Russia.
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@Anashadk So nuclear submarines are meant to carry troops, artillery, armored vehicles and supplies to invade, say, the island of Great Britain ? Hear, hear !
In reality even rivers are still an obstacle to conventional warfare, and much more so seas: Artillery, armored vehicles and supplies in quantities for an invasion have to be brought in by sea, you see. And there are submarines in the sea, which will sink ships. I will add, that nuclear powered submarines will disrupt invasions even more efficiently. Note, that large-scale conventional wars are still fought by nuclear powers: E.g. the Gulf War 1991, the Iraq War 2003, the ongoing invasion of the Ukraine.
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@tb8448 It is easy to tell, what has happened: Gorbachev in the late 1980s/early 1990s gave up supporting Easter European communist regimes and withdrew Soviet troops from these countries plus consented to the reunification of Germany. These acts Russians (Gorbachev and Yeltsin included) see as major concessions from the Soviet/Russian side, to be honored by restraint on the side of NATO. However NATO did expand massively to the East, even integrating former Soviet countries of the Baltic region. Yet NATO still wanted to expand further- to the Ukraine and Georgia.
Putin since 15 years has expressed numerous times that he will not accept the Ukraine to join NATO. In 2014 Russia took the Crimean peninsula, which is of strategic importance to Russia.
The Ukraine wants to join NATO. They even have included this goal into their Constitution in 2019.
After witnessing CiC Joe Biden’s utter lack of military leadership (disorderly flight from Kabul in summer 2021) Putin decided to act. In mid December 2021 he formally demanded from NATO i.a. to stop expansion. This was rejected.
US agricultural business has heavily invested into fertile Ukrainian soil. Which is possibly an important factor for the USA to care so much more for the Ukraine than for Georgia's aspirations to join NATO, which were choked by Russia. Alas, how can a nation who has no oil and no wheat be seen as heroes of democracy by the US, right ?
What will probably happen: Russia will keep the Crimea at all costs and by all means, tactical nukes included. Russia will occupy the ethnically Russian parts of the Ukraine. They might join Russia by referendum, or some coalition, like Abkhazia or South Ossetia. When Putin is gone, his successor will pursue a similar plan. The EU will cooperate with the Ukraine economically, yet not integrate them soon. NATO will not expand. The US will finally concentrate on the Pacific Region, in order to succeed somewhere. And the brave Ukrainians will receive thoughts and prayers.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@Rumpelstiltskin-s8e Why MY "conceptualization" ? About the goals of the invasion's ask those who started it. After all they were democratically elected officials, so they acted in accordance with the majority will of the American people, correct ? It was probably “nation building” and catching Bin Laden (neither of which worked; “nation building” was a typically American folly and Bin Laden was killed on the soil of US ally Pakistan). Yet no matter what the goals were, controlling only 10%-15% of territory is for sure not a military victory. Even less so if one considers the engagement of Western allies, the exorbitant costs and 20 years of trying. Later the inability to orderly withdraw, with the world's costliest military force at the mercy of lightly armored guys on motorcycles and with loyal Afghans falling off the departing planes, was outright shameful.
Compared with that Russia's current military progress is impressive. And it follows Russia winning in Chechnya, in Georgia, in Syria. In stark contrast to that the US in the last 80 years has developed a pronounced habit of not winning wars. Losing TWO wars in roughly the same time (plus betraying also the Kurds) actually underlines that. Now if starting two wars is too much, then do not start them. Again, it is as simple as that.
If you feel uncomfortable with these facts I leave it to you to imagine that I do not know them. Or simply wait for some new Rambo style movie in which a lone US hero (how about a blackish transgender this time?) will mow down them villains after having lost to them in reality.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@whaleacademic7750 The essence of discussion is exchanging opinions and views. If you are so upset about the fact that I pity cultures in which the ceremonial aspect of sharing a meal is not felt, than why do you participate in discussion ? Now if you think that switching around what I wrote makes sense, then do so and I will think about it. As it is provoking and thinking which makes us not only to "move on" but to move up. And to moving up we all shall aspire, shouldn't we, Mr. Academic ? Neither stating the obvious ("there are different cultures"), nor getting snowflakishly upset, nor being indifferent towards otherness will serve this goal.
In your case I can sense that strange confusion of the contemporary white man, who thinks that his relativistic position will impress others ("I will never criticize elements of other cultures, which makes me so very noble.") and then goes on to declare relativism to be a universal ideal. Well, that is futile. As relativism in itself is an aberration. And more often than not it goes along with hypersensitivity to criticism.
The resulting anger makes you overlook that I have actually delivered a possible explanation for the behavior we are discussing. Hence your claim that I did not try to understand the reasons for practices we are debating here is misplaced. Finally your anger makes you swear, which is not in line with the Nordic cultural norm of keeping one's composure. Let alone with the standards of an academic. So in the end a) you have not taken the impulse to celebrate meals and b) you have lost your Nordic cool. Which hardly can be called progress.
3
-
@whaleacademic7750 Well, I am used to fascinate women. Even if I have previously assumed them to be male, pale, huge, thick-boned descendants of Vikings, who now have mellowed down to studying whales instead of harpooning them (your cultural apparatus comes with a self-irony detector, doesn't it ? ;).
I think that most people from affluent countries would agree with what you wrote about handling the dinner issue of children visiting each other.
Now refraining from judging on other cultures is a mantra of the contemporary West. However, I strongly feel that it is unworkable, as we have to agree on a common core, even more so in a multicultural world. Refraining from judgement will also diminish the chances of absorbing whatever one deems to be attractive from other cultures - as that act requires previous judgement. In other words - what is the value of cultural diversity if taking advantage of it is paralyzed by fear of judgement ? Or by phobia of cultural appropriation ?
Specifically I do think that Scandinavians would enhance their lives if they opened their minds and souls to the symbolic aspect of sharing meals. Just as Scandinavians have enhanced their lives by appropriating the Ottoman-Viennese-Italian cultural habit of frequenting coffee houses. BTW- the symbolism of sharing meals is only magnified if the hosts have to sacrifice part of their intake (which to some commentators here seems to be the ultimate horror). Why am I so certain of my opinion ? Because bonding is a universal human trait, transcending specific cultures. Creating more occasions for it is therefore generally beneficial.
Now I do not think that I am bashing Scandinavians nor telling them what to do. But I do provoke them (and others) to spot, assess, catch and haul in cultural bounties, as they once did with whales.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
cubefreak123 Most of what you wrote is a manifestation of imagined knowledge, wishful thinking plus irrelevant arguments:
1. Yes, the Crimea in mid 19th century was on the fringes.
2. Land-Lease was important, yet not decisive. Actually the Soviets stopped and started their counteroffensive before US aid came in in large quantities.
3. That Russia by sheer geography is hard to conquer is true, yet does not abolish what I wrote before.
4. Starting from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Russia beat various post-Mongolian Khanates, beat back mighty Poland-Lithuania, conquered the Baltics, Siberia, the Caucasus region and central Asia. Later Russia participated in the partition of Poland-Lithuania and took control over Finland, revisited the French in Paris after their failed attempt to conquer Russia. Re the Winter War: The SU actually won it, as Finland had to cede part of its territory. Not a big victory nor a glorious one, but a victory.
On top Russia is the only Slavic country which kept up its statehood in the last 500 or so years. As every long lasting empire its territory fluctuated but they never fall apart. Even their civil after the Revolution of 1917 did not disintegrate their country.
That you seriously argue that this is proof that they mostly failed is quite amusing.
Underestimate Russia at your own risk.
2
-
2
-
@sillysad3198 I can cater to you love of history:
First have a look on Russia's expansion in its 500 years or so years of existence, achieved in a large part by military action:
Starting from the Grand Duchy of Moscow, Russia beat various post-Mongolian Khanates, led successful wars with the Ottoman Empire, beat back mighty Poland-Lithuania, conquered the Baltics, expanded into Siberia and the Far East, conquered the Caucasus region and central Asia. Later Russia participated in the partition of Poland-Lithuania and took control over Finland, and revisited the French in Paris after their failed attempt to conquer Russia.
WW I was a draw, with the Bolsheviks not paying attention to the outcome as they were convinced that countries would anyway disappear soon in the wake of proletarian internationalism. The Winter War was technically a victory, as Finland had to cede territory. In reality it was rather a draw. And as you have included the SU, there was WW II, which to a large extent was a Nazi-Soviet war.
Crimean and Manchuria were on the then fringes, which I have excluded, just read my previous posting. And what was lost, was to a large part regained later.
In newer times Russia won the Chechen war(s), then in Georgia, in Syria, in Eastern Ukraine and the Crimea.
Generally speaking NATO leaders had their reasons for having kept that alliance going even though its original mission has evaporated. Unfortunately newer Western leadership, dramatically less competent than the statesmen of the Cold War era, have miscalculated Russian determination and Russian endurance.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Van der Veen had some good points, yet his overall performance was weak. As he tried to argue, that "due process" as understood in penal law is to be applied in impeachment proceedings. This is manifestly not the case.
McConnel held the most convincing speech (after acquittal): Impeachment is about removal of a bad official from office, plus potentially barring him from holding future offices. Once the official is gone - be it by stepping down, by end of term, by dying, the rationale of impeachment is gone. Schumer's worry, that anyone could escape impeachment by stepping down, is misplaced: As Raskin convincingly pointed out, impeachment is not punishment but a "civil remedy". And no one found Nixon's action of stepping down in order to avoid impeachment to be something absurd or unwelcome, as Schumer tried to suggest.
Then is not true, that Trump got away. If someone wants to sue private citizen Trump he may do so. I think that civil litigation has very high chances. And personally I hope for that.
True, the matter of impeaching a former official is disputed. Yet one precedent is but a hint and the recent Senate vote is not binding. Actually the Senate voting on the constitutionality of impeaching a former official comes close to usurping the authority of the SCOTUS, the only body to make binding rulings on what is constitutional.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@kd8199 If so, why in the last 30 years did Russia intervene only when the Ukraine wanted to enter NATO ? In 2014 and now ? And why did Russia destabilize Georgia only when they wanted to join NATO ? Why did Russia in December 2021 demand that NATO pulls back its entry offer to the Ukraine and Georgia ? Hint: Why did JFK demand that the Soviet Union should not deploy missiles on Cuba and why did he risk a nuclear confrontation about that ?
The argument of a common Russian cultural and ethnical core was used in a political context only recently and is emotionally directed at Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians of Russian or mixed ethnicity, and these who culturally still feel very close to Russia. Like the dwellers of Kiev, who mainly use the Russian language.
BTW - Texas: Spanish rule 300 years, Mexican 17 years, independent/part of the USA 200 years. The Ukraine: one thousand years part of Rus-Russia-the Soviet Union and Poland-Lithuania plus some 20 years of own rule plus now independent for 31 years. So independence/statehood 5 % (Ukraine) of the historical record, Texas 40%. If we take the last 100 years: Ukraine 31%, Texas 100%. Not that I find the Russian historical argument convincing, but the Ukraine is much closer to Russia than Texas to Mexico.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
The problem started when lobbying was normalized. Thinking about it I arrive at the conclusion, that it is institutionalized bribery. Or to express that in a more fundamental way - classic political science deals with the rule of physical persons (one, few, many - monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, etc, etc.). Now we accept, that LEGAL persons (corporations) have political rights. The SCOTUS even ruled that they also have rights of free speech. This combined with the power of employment means that an American employer can fire employees for "incorrect" political views.
This is now overshadowed by physical persons like Zuckerberg, Musk etc. having extraordinary political power. Yet let's not forget the more basic sins, namely acceptance of lobbying and the elevation of the status of legal persons to quasi physical persons and their right to control political expression of employees.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Russia: I am referring to the lost decade of the 1990s, when the SU was no more and when the Russian Federation was economically suffering, yet hungry for Western solutions, but ignored by it. Now everyone is complaining that Russia is so un-European. Why Russia by definition cannot be in the EU, but, say the Ukraine can, shows, that the EU is not really European and worse, that it perpetuates the Cold War picture of "Russia the eternal enemy". This is even more striking given that the EU had no problems with accepting post-Franco Spain or post-Salazar Portugal to the EU only some 10 years after they turned into modern democracies.
A basic waltz is in place. But its rules are not kept. Worse, some countries are punished for breaking some rules while breaking other rules by other countries is accepted. On top, when it comes to the future, some write a tango, others maintain that it shall be a polka. And I see no fruitful public debate to reconcile the concepts. But only a preconceived notion that "European integration" is good accompanied by the preconceived notion that the closer the integration, the better. So the core issue is not the lack of a solo maestro but the lack of a democratically legitimized process to establish what kind of orchestra should be set up.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@_Leftismisamentaldisorder_- Re "The Mauryan":
Thank you for your information about Indian history. I uphold the view, that the EIC gained control of India with relatively small means. Relatively.
Now about Rome: I have written about a concept of, an ambition to continue the ancient Roman empire. And that was definitively the case with Byzantium, as a real continuator plus the HREoGN and Russia who both referred to the Roman Empire. Now "Roman" is not confined to Rome, city. Even in the last 2-3 centuries of the original Roman Empire it was not understood as being centered around Rome the city and with Italy being its core territory, but as an idea. E.g. Emperor Diocletian visited Rome city only once or twice in his life.
Later, in Byzantium, Roman law, Roman military organization, Roman engineering were kept alive for another 1,000 years after Emperor Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to the city later named after him. On top references to Rome were a constant in European culture. Roman law was taught in medieval universities, the Renaissance was fascinated by ancient Rome, the Founders of the US read and drew their inspiration out of Cicero and other Roman authors. Actually part of my studies was Roman law.
I doubt such a continuation could be found in India of the times we are speaking about. Did the various states in India of the 18th century refer to the Mauryan Empire ? Did they see themselves as a continuation ?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
If a substantial portion of the population feel that they are not represented politically by any of the existing parties, then according to the idea of modern democracy, they shall establish a new political party, which gains seats in the legislature. However the US political system does not offer a realistic chance to do that. So many millions of US citizens for many years were politically not represented. That feeling of exclusion radicalized them. And then, step by step, in a 10+ year process, from Sarah Palin followers and the Tea Party until today, they took over the GOP. Which of course further radicalized them, as any semi-hostile take over does.
What is astonishing that so many are surprised by what is happening today. It seems that most Americans, even the ones who think that they are educated, are unable to grasp processes which extend over periods longer than one or two years.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@MrJonas7 Actually as a historian I see many differences between now and the dynamics which led to WW II:
This time there is a military alliance (NATO) which was kept going, even though its enemy, the communist Soviet Union/ Warsaw Pact, has disappeared. And that new NATO came closer and closer to Russia, starting before Putin even came to power. It is a classic case of an obsolete institution having invented a new mission - and that mission being self-fulfilling. We label new NATO a defensive alliance. Yet its members, including Poland, invaded and occupied other countries (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) for no good reason in the recent past. On top some US intellectuals openly float the idea that new NATO be a vehicle to disintegrate Russia.
There were no such things in the 1930s. No anti-German military alliance. Later victims / enemies of the Third Reich did everything to appease to Germany before. And no one aired the idea to dismantle Germany. Nevertheless Hitler pushed towards conquest and war. And his goals went very far beyond anything Russia wants now. His goals were outspokenly genocidal towards Slavs and Jews. We shall not dilute these horrors by likening every modern dictator to Adolf.
So: Back then one side was escalating. This time I see escalation from both sides, new NATO having started the chain reaction. Sure, maybe Russia would have moved forward anyway. But this way it was certain that it would. And so the US has learned what the real limits towards Russia are. That some Natives died in that process, was never a consideration for the modern American mind. They care as little about Igors and Olegs, as they cared about Iraqui Ahmeds, Kurdish Ferhads or Afghan Hamids falling off their departing planes. Trump is merely showing it openly.
What now ? After Eastern Europe gained freedom from the Soviet yoke (which the US first facilitated in Teheran/ Yalta and then bravely opposed), Europe shall now elevate itself from being vassals of the US to maturity.
For achieving that I agree to the evident – namely military buildup. But I will raise my voice for two things, which so far seem to escape public attention: Firstly, the mental readiness to war, which is the readiness to kill and be killed - and see our dear ones to do the same. And not “security policy”, as the silly euphemism goes.
But before that I raise my voice for a prudent foreign policy: For overcoming the tunnel view, that permanent conflict with Russia is inevitable, for overcoming that manichean idea, that we are angels and Russia is evil. And in order to find common European ground we first have to acknowledge present differences - see my original posting.
You would be astonished how many people in Poland share this kind of realism.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@pandemicoftheunvaccinated5367 So we have a common enemy. Namely the modern person who does not read books, does not travel, speaks no foreign language and for whom things stop happening once they are off mainstream media. I am the very opposite.
Now I wonder why you did not discover yet that behind my short statements, which I have formulated in a half joking way, there is awareness about a major dilemma of US foreign policy, namely idealism vs realism ? And awareness about the American naivete that any country can "be fixed", as post WW II - Germany and Japan were ? And that parallelly there is/was real and widespread "native" brutality in not a few countries? Syria, the Iraq and Afghanistan being prominent examples for that, let alone Rwanda. You did notice that I have again left out Libya, didn't you ? Let me recommend a frank and revealing article of Hal Brands (realistic school) just published in Foreign Affairs dealing with the issue, whom the US should confront and whom not.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@donixion4368
Even if you narrow down the definition of winning a war, the US did not win Korea (it was a draw), it lost Vietnam and never won in Afghanistan (as that country never was fully brought under military control and Western military actually surrendered in August).
To judge Russia's invasion as a monumental failure, is both premature and out of proportion. Russia mostly fared badly in the beginning of wars, be it Napoleon's invasion, WW I, WW II only to finally win or at least not lose (the major exception being the Russian-Japanese war of 1905). It seems that this time it will be not different. Casualties ? Russia lost some 25 million men and women in WW II alone, approx. 20 times more than the USA did in ALL wars in its history, the Civil War included. Given that 20 k to 40 k fallen soldiers will rather not be considered monumental by most Russians. As long as Putin will be respected for his achievements that is. Now in most Russians' eyes Putin saved Russia's unity. He stopped late Yeltsin anarchy, he finally won in Chechnya, he prevented Georgia from joining NATO, he retook the Crimean peninsular, he stopped the Ukraine from joining NATO and he liberated the ethnically Russian parts of the Ukraine (you do remember that I am describing Russian perceptions here). Yes, he employs increasingly authoritarian methods and yes, the economy was hit by sanctions. However, perception is a cultural issue again. Russians have fond memories of Stalin, a veritable mass murderer at a scale of Hitler, who on top caused dramatic famines in the 1930s. Therefore I doubt Putin's methods will upset a critical mass of Russians. Of course, it is entirely possible, that Putin will be gone by tomorrow morning. Whatever will ensue - it will not be democracy. Actually a strong Russian leader is to be hoped for, as it is in no one's interest to have nuclear and chemical and probably biological arms sold on bazaars of a collapsed Russia. An issue which was very well understood in times the USA had real statesmen at the helm (Reagan, Bush senior, Clinton). And an issue which is very well understood by contemporary American political thinkers of the realist school. Who also understand the danger of an ever closer Russian-Chinese affinity. Now I wish the Ukrainians all the best. But we shall not lose the perspective on even more consequential issues and cool down anti-Russian obsession.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@JonSmith-wg8mr And now putting that coup in a larger picture:
The happenings in 2014 demonstrated that part of the multi-ethnic citizenry of the Ukraine wanted to radically distance themselves from Russia and another part did not.
The second part, originally not really separatist, was driven towards separatism by fierce Ukrainian nationalism. Needless to say neighboring Russia took advantage of the situation. So did the USA, given Ukraine's extremely rich soil. On top significant parts of US elites still entertain the idea, that the US is proficient at "nation building" in places, they do not even remotely understand. It takes a special kind of ignorance/ arrogance to uphold that belief in the face of a series of catastrophic failures in this respect.
Now if the West, which is claiming to be morally superior, really wanted to help the Ukraine, a country, which came into existence by coincidence only 14 years before (counting from 2014), it would have advised them to remain militarily neutral, akin to a whole belt of countries reaching from Finland to Yugoslavia during the Cold War. On top bona fide Western politicians should have advised Ukrainians to consider redrawing their borders which by following the borders of the Ukrainian SSR included many ethnically non-Ukrainian regions. But no, leading Western politicians cynically supported the coup against Yanukovych and nationalistic thinking and lured the Ukrainians with visions of entering NATO. Which in a foreseeable way led to Russia's invasion.
My overall judgment is therefore: Systematically taking advantage of local tensions for one's own interests is nothing else than NEOCOLONIALISM, with naive natives paying the price in blood. And this blood is now flowing in much, much larger quantities than any local half statesman half-villain with his or someone else's snipers ever caused.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@whiterabbitt2002 LOL Sure, there was no taking of land by Israel. None, never, even if Ben Gurion, one of Israel's founders, has proclaimed this necessity. And sure, there was no attempt to expand NATO right into Russia's backyard. No, none, whatsoever. And no, there are no articles of US intellectuals, that NATO's mission after the Soviet Union has collapsed shall turn into breaking up Russia.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bonnie7898 There is no such a thing as a "general" military alliance, as military alliances are not country clubs. Nor does one form military alliances against aliens from outer galaxies. From whom an alliance accepts and whom not, it can be very well deducted, who the foe of the alliance is. In the case of NATO it was the Soviet Union/the Warsaw pact. After communism has imploded NATO was nevertheless upheld. To justify its existence a new enemy had to be constructed. And that is Russia.
NATO did expand and there is no point in trying to discern "active" and "passive" elements of that endeavour. NATO officials have promised the Ukraine access in 2008, fully knowing that this will cause conflict with Russia sooner or later. The 2014 coup did only aggravate these tensions.
All in the present war is a tragic self-fulfilling prophecy: NATO seeks for a new mission, hence relentlessly confronts and provokes Russia, thereby finally triggers the very military aggression which was to be avoided.
Elements of cynicism is also clearly visible: The issue concerns a country with massive US investments (and not, say, poor Kurdistan), the idea of an evil empire is restored, the Western public is once again fed with the "good native, bad native" nonsense. As a result the US weapons industry thrives and natives pay the price in blood, only to be abandoned once the whole things gets to costly.
I was a staunch supporter of original NATO, of a firm yet reasonable USA, a declared opponent of communism and Western pacifism. But now NATO instead of securing peace has triggered a predictable war, most detrimental to everyone involved. And revived the threat of nuclear confrontation.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@DennisPlagge You still simply cannot do without ad hominems and without switching to some meta-level of debating the way of debating, plus some preaching, as if you were both participant and referee of the debate. So you must be American. However I appreciate that these superfluous and inflammatory excursions now constitute only 30% or so of what you write. Clearly you make progress towards escaping the sorry condition of the contemporary American mind.
Now ad rem: Your problem, how one can want to join NATO and oppose it, can be easily answered when you consider a phenomenon called time. To elaborate: Going back in time, first of all there is the question, why NATO was kept alive after its opponent, the USSR, imploded. Clearly a military alliance is meant to protect against someone. NATO was intransparent about who that foe was. The best way for Russia to find out was to make overtures if they could also join. Given they could not (or not on terms they deemed to be fair), given the constant eastward expansion of NATO, their deduction, that NATO deemed Russia to be its opponent was quite reasonable. This insight was gained/solidified in the early 2000s. From then on stopping NATO expansion was imperative from a Russian point of view. Putin's warnings in 2007, his actions towards Georgia and the Ukraine are fully compatible with that previous insight. And what happened before 2007 actually enhances my argument that Putin is quite transparent. If one likes these actions or not is a totally different issue.
On a general level I hope that I could motivate you to put things you heard about into a timeline as that quite often explains imagined inconsistencies.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maghambor You views about the future are at odds with what has and is happening. Actually you are ignoring important parts of reality.
Of course one can view his retreats as the result of his will. But it is a retreat nevertheless. And the form of the 2021 retreat from Afghanistan was shameful. When the Soviets decided to retreat, there were speeches, military parades and the regime installed by them hold out for another three years. This time the most costly military of the world had to flee, with loyal Afghans falling off the departing planes. The Western betrayal of the Kurds was less spectacular, yet just as shameful. Is that being on the "right side of history " ?
The West did not completely isolate Russia, did not come even close to it. Wake up to that reality.
The determination to support the Ukraine has its limits. Especially as much more is at stake , namely China. And weakening and boycotting Russia will make China stronger. Xi Jinping has wisely chosen the moment to enhance his powers to levels unheard of since the days of Mao. Nevertheless Mr. Scholz already has made clear that good relations with China are most important. Never mind Chinese freedom fighters.
The West has a rich history of abandoning also European freedom fighters. Just look at the history of Poland and Czechia, first victims of Nazi Germany, which then have been traded to "Uncle Joe" Stalin. A valued and cherished Western ally, who has before starved the Ukraine in 1932/33 with victims in the millions. Another example of the West being on the right side of history ?
Clearly the West has the right to look after its own interests first. But creating the illusion of being idealistic is irresponsible. And creating the illusion of being a limitless source is outlandish. It is the very history, you are addressing, which demonstrates this beyond doubt.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@larryhorowitz6690 I am not really convinced. As there are many phrases which also have a dark side, like "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité" , "Go West, young man" or "Mission Accomplished". Shall we ban them all, as they might imply chopping off dissenters' heads, eliminating Natives or starting an illegitimate, even illegal war ? Do we really want to have a country in which individuals are pressured to have "The Correct Opinion" about the French Revolution, the conquest of North America, the Iraq War of 2003 ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@USB740 Once again, as you omitted my main argument: Soviet law was not applicable to relations between subjects of international law, in this case Russia and the Ukraine. That is why the Budapest accords were thought to be necessary. If you imply that the statesmen, diplomats and lawyers negotiating, concluding and guaranteeing these accords were ignorant persons just wasting their time, as anyway "there was no other recourse" than to transfer nuclear weapons to Russia, then you transgress the limits of a serious debater.
About the location of codes: US strategic command being located in Nebraska does not imply that US nuclear missiles are property of the state of Nebraska, does it ? Now, if in Soviet law there was that provision about ownership of nuclear weapons by one of the republics, then see my main argument above. So: no favors, nor a fulfillment of Soviet law, but a separate international agreement and its execution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chas721
Russia has accepted the Ukrainian vote of 1991. It did not deny its right to separate from Russia. Yes, Russia to some extent still has the idea , that the Ukraine is a part of the Rus - group of people. One can agree or disagree with that. But to construe a breathtaking insult out of that, or a denial of the right to exist is vastly exaggerated. Furthermore it smells of that savage nationalism, which is so typical of the Ukraine. That picture is reinforced by the sad fact, that the organizers of the Volhynia massacre of 1943/44 are official national heroes of contemporary Ukraine. So much about fascism.
Now Russia does not want the Ukraine to join a military alliance hostile to Russia, NATO. For sure there is an imperialistic element in that demand. But not more than the USA being hostile to any socialist government in the Americas. More generally if one lives close to an empire, he should not provoke it. That is even more true for young nations, like the Ukraine, which have not yet established a civil society (let alone a democracy) nor overcome massive corruption nor dealt with the dark spots in its own history.
The Ukraine out of fear of Russia has pushed for NATO membership, thereby triggering a self-fulfilling prophecy. Ukrainians defend themselves with great determination and skill. I can only hope that this will be complemented by realism. It will not be easy: Young nations tend to see themselves as being the center of the universe, to imagine that some kind of justice reigns the world and to place exaggerated hopes on allies.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@danesullivan5151 Again: As I have demonstrated starting from some posting, applying YOUR "everything can be reversed" method leads to a worthless infinite regress, as the reversal can be reversed and so can the reversal of the reversal and so on.
Originally I have posted a simple opinion about the MSNBC piece picturing Trump as being bad. My opinion is that this piece does not favor Biden, nor, replying to your comment, materially harm Trump. Assuming that news are being produced and watched to have some impact, I therefore deem such news being obsolete. Being a noble debater I concede that my connection "no potential impact = obsolete" can be called a definition.
It goes without saying that there is the risk that no one will be impacted by this my opinion, in other words, that it might turn out to be obsolete itself. But that risk is inherent to ALL comments we make here. So it is not true that it is precisely qualifications of videos being obsolete which can turn out to be obsolete themselves, as you hold. In other words your logic is faulty as you limit the general risk of obsolescence to specific postings. And the insight that postings can be ignored, is of little value, I am afraid.
Now having clarified all that, the implication of my original posting is, that we shall use our time to debate more promising issues, like, how do we judge Biden or who is there apart from Biden and Trump.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@_Leftismisamentaldisorder_- The Roman Byzantine Empire ("Eastern" makes only sense as long as there was a Western part of it, which was a couple of decades) lasted roughly 1,000 years. In its long prime time it controlled most Mediterranean shores and their hinterland, a large part of the Appennine peninsular, the Balkans, Anatolia and the Levante. It defeated Avars, Huns, Bulgars, Saracenes, Seldjuks - so it survived the times of the big "migrations of barbarians" which brought the ancient Latin West to a fall. And it preserved Roman law, Roman military institutions, Roman architecture plus a large part of ancient Greek culture, especially the writings of philosophers. No wonder that before and after it fell, in 1453, this knowledge, carried to Latin Europe, was one of the main impacts to the European Renaissance.
That the importance of Byzantium is neglected is due to the schism of Christianity into a Latin West and Orthodox East, plus, much later, the idea of the West European Enlightenment, that anything eastern is of little value. The very thinking that made them belittle civilizations of the Indian subcontinent.
1
-
1
-
@_Leftismisamentaldisorder_- Your knowledge of the history of the Indian subcontinent is impressive and inspiring. Of the Roman Empire and its civilization, while still markedly above average, less so. Christianity did not affect the main accomplishments of Roman civilization as much as it is commonly believed. These accomplishments were mainly in organization (law, military, political structure, architecture) and less in philosophy and religion. There is little contradiction between Roman law, Roman military organization, Roman political structure, Roman aqueducts and Christian teachings. It was precisely the Byzantine Empire which continued along the intrinsically secular Roman heritage. But again, also Latin Europe wave by wave rediscovered the Roman civilization and made use of it. And then there was the whole body of ancient Greek and later Hellenistic culture. These conflicted more with Christianity than the Roman heritage, but also there a synthesis of ancient Platonic/ hellenistic neoplatonic thinking and Christianity took place (mainly in the Eastern part of the late Roman Empire, including Egypt, as you mentioned, in the first centuries AD) and much later (13th century) between the rediscovered metaphysical works of Aristotle and Christianity, in the medieval European West. To this day the most prominent of those synthetic thinkers, Thomas Aquinas, is the official philosopher of the Catholic Church (to be precise - his teachings are). All in, one can see quite a continuity here, mainly in the secular realm. Continuity mind you, not identity.
My impression is that in India the continuity is mainly carried by religion, as you pointed out, but not in the secular sphere. My second impression is, that Hinduism is rather concentrated on personal issues, but much less on social issues when compared with the Abrahamic religions.
Maybe the expansionism of Christian and Muslim powers, as opposed to the relative passivity of Hinduistic states, is correlated with the differences between the respective religions (this not being the only cause). For sure in both Abrahamic religions there is an intrinsic missionary element (I leave out the issue of Judaism). There is no such a proselytic imperative in Hinduism, correct ? Maybe geography contributed too: The Indian subcontinent surrounded by ocean and the Himalaya, by tropical jungle to he East and arid land to the West, the only expansion possible being an oceanic one, to which you cited one example. Europeans on the other hand were forced to navigate anyway, as we have the Mediterranean and the Baltic/North Sea basins in the middle of Europe and between us and our immediate neighbors. On top navigating them is much easier than the oceans.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@andersmalmgren6528 "Great Britain bought time, the USA gave money and the Soviet Union gave blood". As a historian I agree with that simplification.
Yet you are wrong with "Europeans" (other than Russians, Ukrainians, Belorussians) doing the heavy lifting. Continental European countries were neutral/friendly/cooperating (Italy, Spain, Portugal, Finland, Hungary, Slovakia, most Balkan countries, France to a large part, Sweden, Ireland, Switzerland, Turkey).
Nearly all of the occupied nations on balance supported the Nazis (i.e. brief resistance vs. supplying volunteers for Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Belorussian, Ukrainian, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Bosnian SS Divisions).
The only big continental country which stands out is Poland.
Then the US, under progressive Mr. Roosevelt, handed 1/3 rd of Europe to the Georgian "Uncle Joe" Stalin. So that was not a specifically Baltic fate. I encourage you to broaden your horizon !
So the big picture is: Continental Europeans invent strange ideologies (communism, national socialism) and then kill each other. Even now they are not able to achieve lasting peace (Balkan wars of the 1990s, Ukraine).
The USA first helps and then abandons. Far from perfect - but better than continental Europe.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@garyhicks9506 Fascism was an ideology. A mixture of 1. authoritarian etatism, 2.socialism, 3. nationalism, 4.militarism (Italy under Mussolini; Franco's Spain while sharing most features was culturally more conservative). Change authoritarian to totalitarian, add the Führer principle, add extreme racism based on scientific thought of the times plus traditional prejudices and you will get National Socialism (Germany under Hitler).
Trump has no ideology whatsoever. In his actions he was not an etatist, not a socialist, not prone to militarism, not totalitarian, not an extreme racist. Trump was/is a strongly narcissist demagogue leaning towards nationalism.
The reason why I urge to be careful with words is that doing the opposite will water down the monstrosity of National Socialism and the frightfulness of fascism. If we will label any rightist demagogue a fascist and use the same word for National Socialism, then future generations might think that Hitler's ideology was just offensive, and not one of the most evil regimes in the history of mankind.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@NoName-hg6cc I am not repeating what the Kremlin says. The idea of realism in foreign policy is actually older than Russia. At the same time holding that everything the Kremlin says, is wrong by definition, is another manifestation of an anti-Russian fixation.
Some Western opinion influencers do call for deconstructing Russia. And NATO's policy of the last decades to welcome everyone except Russia, is de facto hostile towards it. Typical Russian phobia ? In this case not really : Putting Soviet missiles on Cuba was perceived to be such a threat towards the US, that President John F. Kennedy risked a nuclear war to prevent it. On top he showed no inhibitions to trample international law and Cuba's interests, did he ? More recently the USA and some European NATO countries have invaded the Iraq, because it might have the kind of weapons, the US has. And then Afghanistan was invaded, despite the Taliban's offer to get rid of Al Quaeda. Once that occupation got too costly, Western forces left - Afghans loyal to the US falling off the departing planes.
In a nutshell, the West is in no position to be a preacher of international law nor morality in foreign relations. We, the West, are conducting a realistic foreign policy, decorated by selective idealism. It is our moral obligation to state that in advance.
One of the two countries I am living in is Poland. Yes, Polish foreign policy shall account for its proximity to Russia. Which means: Neither provoking Russia nor being subservient to it. And for the worst case, maximum capability to self-defense. Very different than hating Russia for being there and dehumanizing them as orcs.
1
-
@boozolini4465 I am servant to no one. Not Russia, not the Ukraine, not the US, not Eurocrats like Draghi.
Nor to anti-Russian fixation, nor anti-Ukrainian fixation, nor other fixations.
The only things I bow to is Reality and God. About the latter we cannot debate. However we can debate about relevant reality.
What that is according to me, I have already laid out. If you see important issues in a different way, just present your views. And do yourself a favor - stop imagining, that everyone who has diverging interests / views, is of bad character. As such reflexes blur your vision and are opposed to a core value of the West, namely pluralism of opinions.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jenborn5358 You might be a resident of Florida, but you have no idea about flood insurance. And I doubt that you know much about flooding risks. To begin with flooding risk is not a binary issue, VE or not VE, as you suggest. Then living in a VE zone does not say much. Publicly available maps will show simulations of flooding resulting from various sea level surges. Just have a look at e.g. the official site of Lee County, Mr. Architect. Besides there is flooding risk near to Lake Okeechobee too. Which is some 24 feet above sea level.
Private insurance will not insure houses in zones of high flooding risk with a mortage on it. And if they will, then the rates will be so high, as to be impossible to bear for people who need a mortage on a house in first place. On top private insurances often go bankrupt after a major hurricane. That is why there is a federal flood insurance, you know. As an old Floridian I can only suggest you think about that factor too.
In terms of architecture I agree. My parents' house in Bonita Springs, 42 years old, has survived three Cat4, Cat5 hurricanes without any damage to speak of. It is concrete, covered with concrete tiles, peel & sticked plus secured by screws. And of course it is not on the beach but 20 ft above sea level, in other words a couple of miles inland. Which makes flood insurance very cheap, no matter if federal or private. As flooding risk is main driver for insurance rate. And not ideologically preconceived notions of "government vs private".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sassy6498 Your starting point is very typical and very odd. It assumes that Russia has no right to pursue its interests. And if they do so, that is automatically "blackmailing".
Russia in the last 30 years was not an expansive power. It has retreated from Eastern Europe. It has accepted that from Estonia to Romania countries have joined NATO. However when Russia made inquiries about joining NATO, it was turned down.
But there is a limit. Putin has made clear again and again, that Russia will not allow the Ukraine nor Georgia to join a military alliance directed against Russia. That is understandable. And actually much less of an imperialistic behavior than the West, more specifically the USA, is displaying. Who think they have every right to invade the Iraq, to destabilize Libya or to lecture China. Places many thousands of miles away, not neighbors, as Ukraine is to Russia.
The Ukraine, a very corrupt and politically unstable country, could have pursued modernization under neutrality. Finland, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Yugoslavia did fare well with their neutral status even during Soviet times.
Regarding the Russian-Ukrainian war there will be no winner. The Ukraine is already heavily damaged and will get more so given Russia's resolve. Western societies given the lingering economic crisis will not be ready or even able to finance its reconstruction.
Now Western reliance on Russian commodities is unfortunate - but growing dependence on Saudi oil is not any better. As you might know Saudi Arabia is the main exporter of radical Islam worldwide. And is bombing hospitals in the Yemen. More generally America deems China to be the number one rival. Russia's weakness (and much more so its disintegration) will massively empower China.
The war is a tragedy, as any war is. And harsh realism is not pleasant. But in the long run better than entertaining the illusion that one's country is the center of the world.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ReneBonde-t2z Denmark - I see, thanks.
Re changing NATO role: And there is the legitimacy / prestige issue: The invasion of the Iraq in 2003 had nothing to do with 9/11, and if anything only led to more terrorist threat, as in destabilized Iraq (and Syria and later Libya) the IS came up. That parallelly the West treats Saudi Arabia, homeland and global exporter of wahhabism (the radical school of Islam, in which Al Qaeda found its inspiration) as an ally, makes "war on terror" an even less credible slogan.
When it comes to Afghanistan, the picture is emerging, that the Taliban were quite ready to remove Al Qaeda from their country back in 2003 - if in return they had gotten assurance from the West to be left alone. This is also plausible as Bin Laden was found and killed not in Afghanistan but in Pakistan - a longtime ally of the US. So Afghanistan was not necessary either.
We Europeans have followed these US follies, just as vassals do. Consequently we have inherited also the burden of these past policies. No wonder then, that say, India, China and even big NATO member Turkey view our foreign policy as morally not better than Russia's.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@krystofk.2279 No, Russia is not the successor state of the USSR. There are 15 such states.
Re the "split" which according to your imagination came into being between Novogrod and Moscow (as if they had been together): You refer to times before the period I was referring to.
Your argument, that luck was a consistent factor during centuries is not worthy to be considered.
And why do you cite examples which support my statement, that Russia did lose some military engagements and that even Moscow was occupied as if that was a rebuttal of what I wrote ?
Re the Crimean theory: Russia kept its great power position even after losing the Crimean war. Just as the British Empire kept its after losing in Afghanistan in 1842 and after losing the Sudan to the Mahdi decades later. And as France has kept its position after Paris had been occupied by Russian troops in 1814. And as the Austrian Empire, later Austro-Hungarian Empire, after having lost most of Northern Italy in the decades after 1850. In order to make dramatic pronouncements about the effect of one war, as you did, one has to have a better knowledge of general history.
Russia as the saying goes, is not as invincible as many think. Yet not as weak as many imagine it to be. The West is still quite confused about Russia: It is deemed to be powerful enough to have kept and expanded NATO even though its official adversary, communism has collapsed. Yet Russia was not deemed to be powerful enough to be treated seriously. The Ukrainians pay the price for this inconsistent miscalculation in blood. And the West covers its truly strategic blunder by setting up a picture of an all-bad Russia and by childishly rejoicing how primitive Russia allegedly is.
Thanks for the hint about Zubov. However as anyone seriously interested in history soon discovers, one author is no author. Maybe I will add his books to the many I have read already, by authors of different nationalities and from different times. Come back here once you have learned to master the basic information from one source.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@InterviewsWithTheAncients Russia is not a superpower, yet not nearly as weak as some naive people think. More to the point Russia is winning its military engagements: Recent examples are Chechnya, Georgia, Syria, the Crimean.
The US, an economic superpower, alas a highly indebted one, did not achieve its goals in Iraq, nor in Syria, nor in Afghanistan. Billions were spent for nothing. And hundreds of thousands of people died for nothing (that is if you include natives, who are human beings too; a point often forgotten by many people in the West who only see their own military casualties). And the USA in this process lost its status as being the beacon of the free world, it once had enjoyed.
So - money manifestly does not translate into military success. Nor in global soft power. It is therefore unwise for the USA, for the West at large to play the righteous global judge. These times are over.
The West with its rich history of mutual hate and wars should rather help by sharing its newer tradition of deescalation and ability to reach compromise.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@junevandermark952 Not being an American I have always admired the ability of US society to correct itself (like overcoming segregation) plus some basic civility, which by and large was kept up despite fierce political differences.
This has changed in the last two decades or so. And the impulse came from both sides of the political spectrum. H. Clinton openly despised her opponents (to be precise, half of them, which is still roughly one quarter of the population) as racists, misogynists etc. That was unfair to say the least. And it was not a slip. It was the expression of a growing progressive hostility towards anything traditional. On the other side, the fact, that a person like Trump could succeed, says a lot about the sorry state of the conservative side.
To make matters worse, media have given up the ambition of being brokers of information, but turned into openly partisan institutions.
We live in an age of marketing and as controversy sells better than moderation, controversy heats up without any basic reason. That at least is my answer to the question politico raised today in its article "We Are In a New Civil War … About What Exactly?".
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jbolanowski1 Again - realists do not ignore feelings, they just do not judge upon them. Mearhseimer's point is, that the ways empires behave is to some extent similar, whatever their ideological foundations are. This, as any generalization, by definition is not fully accurate, nor does it explain all aspects of reality. But it is a useful framework to understand what is happening now: Countries afraid of Russia joined NATO and Russia is afraid of NATO. NATO in the last two and a half decades expanded greatly and is ready to expand into the Ukraine. Ukraine once again asked to join. Russia has made clear since many years that it will not allow this and actually has stopped NATO's expansion into Georgia. Of course both sides (NATO and Russia) argue that they should not be feared. Yet both sides have a rich history of recent military interventions.
Now leaving the realist level, let me offer my judgement: The West is constantly lamenting that Russia is so uneuropean, yet is constantly excluding Russia. More specifically NATO did not want (once relatively liberal) Russia let in when they knocked at the door. Russia is not modern enough ? If so, why is Turkey, why is Albania a NATO member ?
My second point is this: The West knows very little about Eastern Europe. Not few people in Germany today are saying that they would not care if Russia took Poland, as Poland is an oppressive country anyway, which in free and fair elections has repeatedly voted an anti-European government into office. Many Americans firmly believe that Hungary and Poland are dictatorships. I know that this is nonsense, but public/general opinion matters, as you correctly point out. So Middle & Eastern European countries should be very careful to balance their need of security from Russia with realism about how much the West really cares about them.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@maghambor Re Russia - democracy: Basically I am an optimist (although I am brutally realistic too, even more so to my own, i.e. Western civilization which keeps denigrating itself, but at the same time arrogantly assumes being the blueprint for global civilization).
However the Russia-Ukraine war ends, the West shall try to integrate Russia in some way indeed. Now the attitude "we will teach you how to behave" will not work. Even people who want to learn something from someone they deem to be more advanced will reject that mentor if he approaches them in this arrogant way.
What applies to people generally even more so applies to Russians, who are, as you correctly pointed out, quite proud (let's pragmatically skip the issue in how far that pride is well-founded and where it is silly). One thing is certain: Treating Russia like defeated enemy during the last 30 years or so did not work out. I am saying this, as I deem a war in Europe to be a failure in itself, whatever the military outcome. And I deem this war to be a collective failure. Sure, Russia bears the bigger share of blame. But the impatience of the Ukraine to join NATO and the lack of empathy of the West towards Russia were essential contributing factors.
The process of reducing mistrust on all sides needs decades. We know that from Western European history, say from German-French relations.
There was a window of opportunity to warm Western-Russian relation in the 1990s, when Russia was weak and longing for Westernization. We did not raise to the occasion and today are again in a Cold War. More of the same will not work. We shall think of an alternative way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@vandalosafadis7489 Do you know any explanations for the lower BIRTH rates ? (Not the same as demographic / population change, which is a net of birth rate, mortality rate, emigration and immigration!).
French episodes of secularization are not convincing. Your other reason, war losses, point to the contrary: War losses normally trigger higher birth rates, which in 1-2 generations compensate for the previous narrowing of the population base. And, BTW, the Napoleonic wars also led to population losses in the later German Empire.
My only take is that he "Grain Invasion" which started around 1870 hit France worse than Germany, lowering the birth rate. But that is weak.
As to the population growth of Germany they had a steady influx of immigrants from Poland, being part of Prussia in the 19th century. No comparable thing in France to my knowledge. On the other hand there was much more emigration from Germany than from France. So, it is a riddle.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@KaitharVideo The overarching problem with the US legal system is that there is no coherent concept to refer to. So sometimes common law is referred to (as you do with the strength of precedence). Sometimes (European) continental law systems are addressed (as McConnell does, relying on the literal text of the Constitution). Sometimes it is original intent (as used in an article in politico, titled "The Founders wanted it that way" { i.e. that former officials can be impeached}). In other cases it is natural law. In the end everyone is right, but only within the chosen system.
Now the claim, that a body always applies standards it ought to apply, would be unreasonable. And the subjective confidence of being in line with the Constitution does not create an objective reality, nor a reality which is binding to others involved.
Thanks for point out, that in the US one cannot ask the SCOTUS for binding interpretations (an idea which seems to base on case law). In most continental systems with a written constitution the legislator can ask the constitutional court of the country if an intended act is constitutional or not. The court deems the uncertainty of the legislator to be that "something" worthy of action.
One would assume, that the USA, having set up a written Constitution, would have created a similar possibility, be it by a later amendment. But no, it is a Constitution written in a continental fashion, to be interpreted solely by an adversial system, suited for a common law system with no codified constitution.
In the end the Senate of the USA rushed into a decision deemed to be of historical dimensions with the constitutionality of that process not being settled, but only assumed by little more than half of its members. That is not a promising starting point to the closure of a traumatic experience.
It seems that the USA for every problem they solve create new ones.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@donixion4368 The US is not winning wars since WW II (with the exception of the Gulf War of 1991). There is a pronounced mismatch between the might of the US Armed Forces and their success. One reason is that US society is not ready to accept a level of casualties, which would be necessary to play the role of global cop successfully.
Another reason is the lack of knowledge of other cultures. The miscalculation of Putin about the Ukraine is nothing compared to the miscalculation of the West, which ignored Putin's repeated warnings and actions against interfering in what Russia considers to be its sphere. The diminished goals of the Russian invasion into the Ukraine and the slow progress of Russian forces is nothing compared to the recent scenes in Kabul, where US/Western Armed Forces fled from lightly armored Taliban on motorcycles, once again (just ask the Kurds) leaving people who trusted in the USA/the West behind.
No wonder that the soft power of the USA, which once was tremendous, has largely evaporated. Yes, people think of Russia as a permanent semi-failed state and people are disgusted by its brutality. But they do not buy the story that Russian imperialism is exceptionally bad. Putin-speak ? No. That is what Gideon Rose, long time editor of the prestigious Foreign Affairs magazine wrote 2 months ago.
Now prominent US thinkers (like Kissinger) and West European politicians try to persuade the Ukrainians to think about a peace agreement with Russia, with territorial compromises.
So - diminish Russia (and their technology, which from time to time works surprisingly well) at your own risk. My non-Russian ancestors have lived under Russian rule and partly suffered under it for a couple of generations. I have no reason to love Russia. But even less reason to ignore it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@TheReferrer72 The US never really took the Iraq nor Afghanistan. Iraq was the Green Zone, Baghdad, and some bigger cities. Substantial parts of Afghanistan, only approx. 3 hours of driving time south of Kabul, have been mainly under Taliban rule in the last decades. Eliminating Saddam, a former US ally (in the 1980s Iraq-Iran war) is not an accomplishment if hundreds of thousands of Iraquis lost their lives in the chaos and anarchy which followed. And mind you, the explicit goal was nation building. The same is true about Gaddafi. In Syria the Assad regime was saved by Russia, one of Putin's major accomplishments.
Peter, I am not driven by negative emotions towards the USA. Quite the contrary. For all its faults the West / the US are the best system which mankind has so far set up. That is why I am sorry for all that American tax money and especially the health and lives of US military who faithfully fought wars, which were unwinnable. And I am sorry for all the local people, which, as I again have the impression, you deem to be somehow less worthy of pity.
My engagement to deliver counterarguments to views fostered by mainstream media is driven by a) a good knowledge of history which plays a huge role in European thinking, b) living in Europe and speaking three languages, c) having friends and relatives in some Central and Eastern European countries and d) reading Foreign Affairs, in which US foreign policy is discussed and to some extent shaped long before it enters mainstream media.
I wish the Ukrainians -and Russians well. But the time has come to mentally prepare for a deescalation in a couple of months. One of the reasons being that driving Russia closer to China will make containing China much, much harder. Even more so a disintegration of multi-ethnical, mainly Asian Russia, not unlikely after a full defeat in the current war, will make China benefit even more. Have a look at the map and imagine what happens when China takes say, diamond rich Yakutia or other parts of Russia's far eastern provinces.
1
-
@TheReferrer72 Your picture of Afghanistan is at odds with first hand reporting from the southern Pashtun regions of Afghanistan. But that is secondary. What counts is this: If the declared war goal is to get control over a country thereby creating a frame for the given population to build a civil society capable of upholding a stable, modern, or at least semi-modern state - and one does not even get close to point one, namely gaining control of that country, then this IS a failure. To afterwards reduce the war goal to merely taking military control of the capital of that country is not convincing, to put it politely.
That the declared war goal of Iraq 2003 and other was unattainable I have stated myself ("unwinnable wars"). But then do not start such wars ! It can be done: In 1991 Bush senior wisely established a limited war goal of liberating Kuwait. And mounted a broad coalition under US leadership, which actually won the war. See, it can be done.
Re "what everyone forgets": I do not forget. I am aware that there is no absolute guarantee to peace. And I am aware that no country keeps its word in the long run. And that Russia is an as uncomfortable neighbor as any empire (we could debate how uncomfortable the specific empires are, but that would not change the big picture anyway).
What might stop Russia from invading is applying what worked in the Cold War: The Ukraine assuming neutral status, but enjoying the freedom to develop its economic ties with everyone, including the USA, just as it did so far.
Am I happy with such a solution ? No. But I deem it to be the least detrimental / most feasible one.
Do you envisage a better option ?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1