Russia is now bombing Ukraine

[chenGOD]

1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:

It's not like that has stopped anyone before you just need a nice pretext that generates a lot of emotions.

In some cases sure, but I think that international law stops more aggression than people give it credit for - at least in terms of members who generally abide by the legal standards set. The US has a very shaky record for sure - but it hasn't launched a new full scale invasion in the last decade - unless I'm missing/forgetting something?

 

1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:

Coherent foreign policy was always coordinated (*cough* sprung *cough*) by US interests. The US also has individual agreements with individual EU countries, which do not always work in the interests of the EU as a whole, and if EU began working as a coherent entity, it would render some of the US co-dependent support roles moot.

I disagree that EU foreign policy is always coordinated with US interests. To give just one terrible example - European foreign policy in Rwanda to resolve the genocide there was directly counter to US/NATO goals. 

The US currently does not have any FTAs with EU nations, but work is ongoing to establish an EU-US FTA. This makes sense, as the two economies are roughly commensurate - the EU being slightly larger I believe. It will be a difficult and protracted series of negotiations, as the EU will demand (rightfully) much stronger worker protections. The Biden administration will be more willing to include such protections than a Trump or other Republican-led administration, but likely not to the level that the EU will demand. So that will be very interesting to see how it plays out.

Certainly, an FTA between those two blocs would be more beneficial to the EU than one with Russia - where there is no transparency at all (not saying it's perfect in the west, but there are actual actors who care and raise a fuss and don't get "disappeared" for doing so.

All that to say, the EU could certainly create a cohesive foreign policy that could address Russia without relying on the US. It will take significant willpower, and the French and Germans will have to work together to overcome lingering WW2 doubts/fears/guilt. The UK would be a significant player if only it were a part of the EU, but alas, they have slowly chewed off their nose to spite their face. On matters of security they may seek to overcome their xenophobia/nationalism, but I hold little hope for economic progress or re-integration.

[Taupe Beats]

I have mentioned him elsewhere on this board but this seems like a good place to recommend Sergei Loznitsa. Excellent Ukrainian filmmaker who has made multiple films on the recent plight of his nation.

https://www.criterion.com/current/posts/7715-sergei-loznitsa-and-the-return-of-donbass

 

[Soloman Tump]

2 hours ago, thefxbip said:

I have ignored him. But see how many replies are replies to his trolling? lol

I guess i am free to leave. But i did get good info in here from other posters, that helped me understand the situation.

I just think it sucks to let a troll completely hi-jack forums and threads without any moderation. Have you ever been on a discord where trolls are let loose and free to room around?

If you leave then the troll wins.  

[zero]

1 hour ago, thefxbip said:

Have you ever been on a discord where trolls are let loose and free to room around?

*presses pause on current doom and gloom conversation to dive deep into the watmm memory banks*

bro I don't think you were here on this forum back in like '05 or '06, but there was an offshoot of watmm, a sister site so to speak, that sprung up around this time. this unnamed forum, which may or may not be hosted by an ex-baseball playing member of the Toronto Blue Jays organization, was set up with no adherence to the rules, everyone was let loose to troll until their hearts were content. it was populated by celebrities being impersonated by idm nerds, and most of it was nothing short of genius. it was trolling in its most pure state, and it was probably the funniest shit I have ever bear witness to. it is my hope that somehow the posting history of that forum be included in the national historic archives of some neutral country, possibly the country of Wales. there were fake celebrities battling it out with spambots, which is some shit on another level entirely that I can't really even begin to describe. have you ever gone toe to toe with a spambot? no! because sane individuals don't do this. this is left to fans of this here style of electronic music, which was birthed unto the world by the godfather of the troll, Mr. Ricardo H. Jamison.

anyway, the moral of my story is that trolls have been here before, will continue to be here, and will no doubt spring up again at some point down the line. I take just about everything posted here with a grain of salt, and try not to let the blatantly wrong shit get under my skin. it is pretty obvious to anyone who frequents this place daily who the voices worth listening to are, and who should be taken with a pfft, whatever, attitude. 

now back to discussing the heinous atrocities being committed against the infrastructure and civilian population of the country of Ukraine...

[ARPA]

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2022/03/18/steadfast-pensioner-becomes-symbol-of-russias-anti-war-movement-a76977

Born at the tail end of World War II, in a Leningrad devastated by a brutal 900-day Nazi blockade, Yelena Osipova grew up witnessing the tragic consequences of war firsthand.

Now 77, she has become a well-known presence at protests against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with footage of her frequent detentions by police going viral.

 

[brian trageskin]

guys, zeff is literally just an autistic loser, cut the man some slack. 

Spoiler

Edited March 22, 2022 by brian trageskin

[cichlisuite]

1 hour ago, chenGOD said:

In some cases sure, but I think that international law stops more aggression than people give it credit for - at least in terms of members who generally abide by the legal standards set. The US has a very shaky record for sure - but it hasn't launched a new full scale invasion in the last decade - unless I'm missing/forgetting something?

Well Syria, and turning a blind eye on Israel vs Palestine and Saudi vs Yemen for instance, and leaving Afghanistan in complete disarray with increased corruption is right up there sharing the hall of fame with Putin's Ukraine adventure in my book. Actually, by yearly donations of billions of US dollars to Israel to continue its genocide is straight up proxy war financing... And with all the evidence of war profiteering, meddling and war crimes US committed in the middle east, north Africa and south America, the Hague is now preparing a dossier on Putin but not on any aforementioned US adventures is blatant one-sided policy that reeks of hypocrisy, and I'm being very gentle with my wording here.

US foreign policy is very aggressive and completely self-interested in driving hard bargains with its "allies", which, for their lack of sovereignty in this case could be as well called vassal states and not allies.

I'm yet to decipher the true intentions of Brexit, but I dare to speculate, that it was meddled by interest groups very keen on weakening the EU global relevance.

It is well documented that the NATO expansion, direct meddling and lobbying, and increased military industry spending by US was aimed at weakening European military industry. US blocked France from selling military equipment to Australia. And now Germany is buying US 5th generation war planes. And now Javelin sales are skyrocketing. This is just too perfect to be a mere coincidence, isn't it?

I'm not a militarist in any sense, but I support Macron's idea of an independent European defense force. Of course, with France being the only EU country with its military industry still more or less intact, this would play well for France, but taking the right steps, and the EU finally coming together, all nations could benefit from it, although it's hard for me to swallow this (military is nonetheless, a necessary evil, still).

[zero]

41 minutes ago, brian trageskin said:

cut the man some slack. 

[thefxbip]

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2014/07/long-shadow-manhattan-project-part-atom-bombs-mark-science/

http://www.worldsciencefestival.com/2014/07/long-shadow-manhattan-project-part-ii-ethics-atomic-age/

[dcom]

 

[chim]

On 3/20/2022 at 9:52 PM, zazen said:

Interesting to look back at this now (from 24th Feb, page 1 of this thread)

 

It seemed like Russia were going to steamroll in there and take all the key infrastucture with no resistance. Videos of tanks rolling over the border and helicopters above Kyiv.

Then later that day Russia failed to take Hostomel airport. That was odd - a superpower special ops team just completely fail at something?

And we've come such a long way since then. In the last five years or so it seemed like Putin had impunity to do whatever he liked - poisoning of the Skripals in 2018 on UK soil, poisoning Navalny in 2020. These were things that the west absolutely knew Putin had done but did nothing about them. Partly because so many of our politicians have been taking donations from oligarchs. Russian funding was behind a lot of the Brexit campaign. And the whole orange man thing.

Now it turns out the Russian army is corrupt and badly organised and equipped. Turns out western governments can just seize all the Oligarchs assets if they want. Turns out Europe and the US can find the will to give up the addiction to Russian fossil fuels. Putin isn't actually a puppet-master, he's a puppet of the people around him who've been feeding him overly positive assessments of Russias capabilities.

I don't think it's a good example of Russia's vulnerability as much as it is the western hemisphere's ability on the global platform to shut anyone down right now. Don't like you? Bam - drop all credit, drop all citizen credit, etc etc. Again, as EU citizens we have a vested interest in this going the way it's going, but It's pretty scary. People who have been vehemently against arms have been for Ukraine civilians arming themselves every step of the way. I regret to say it but I really don't care, Russia needs the blowback.  

[thefxbip]

1 hour ago, cichlisuite said:

Well Syria, and turning a blind eye on Israel vs Palestine and Saudi vs Yemen for instance, and leaving Afghanistan in complete disarray with increased corruption is right up there sharing the hall of fame with Putin's Ukraine adventure in my book. Actually, by yearly donations of billions of US dollars to Israel to continue its genocide is straight up proxy war financing... And with all the evidence of war profiteering, meddling and war crimes US committed in the middle east, north Africa and south America, the Hague is now preparing a dossier on Putin but not on any aforementioned US adventures is blatant one-sided policy that reeks of hypocrisy, and I'm being very gentle with my wording here.

 

True.

It's not that surprising to see Russians being in favor of the War. I am not surprised personally. Ultra-nationalism will do that to the mind of a population.

You just have to remember the kind of nationalist military culture USA has and how easy the population was convinced into supporting the War in Afghanistan, in Irak.

Russia and USA are enemies yet in some ways they are very much alike.

 

[dcom]

Quote

The country that took Finland's security guarantees

President Sauli Niinistö's rapid strike in Washington on March 4 was joined by a roller coaster of emotions for us Finns. I don’t think enough has been said about these feelings. War should be treated in public as if it were waged in a newspaper chess column, even though the feelings it causes are much closer to a bungee jump.

First, the news of the visit to the White House, of course, gave rise to hope. At least I personally watched the news about the visit on the phone and exclaimed to no one: Hey now that Sale has an ace up her sleeve!

Immediately after, he felt relieved in disbelief. Does this mean that we will only get to NATO right away? I wouldn’t have thought it could be that easy!

But at the same time, the news also caused uncertainty, as my personal experience of international diplomacy is undeniably limited.

At the start of the meeting, Niinistö sat next to Joe Biden in a chair and looked so unusually pressurized that it caught me through the stream.

With the negotiations finally vaguely ending in some kind of promise of some process, there was no more pure panic in his chest.

I called my friends in a group chat and asked if our press really used all the aces on their sleeves, maybe even their legs and the collar of their shirts - and that they had only redeemed an hour of selfie with Biden, who was a little tired, and not even any security guarantees.

Sauli Niinistö seemed tense when talking to Joe Biden.

After Biden disappeared, perhaps to sleep, President Niinistö tried to swear faith in the journalists present at the press conference and in us, the citizens who are squeezing their mobile phones in Finland.

HS's Washington correspondent Elina Väntönen asked Niinisto whether the United States would now be expected to provide support if Finland were to become aggressive against Russia. It was, of course, exactly the question that every Finn eagerly wanted to know the answer to, perhaps with the proviso that the answer would be good to include one of the American bombs so big that hostile landlords would smoke as far as the Asian steppes if necessary.

My horror Niinistö did not look up at the heavens and burst into praise of Uncle Sam's strong arms. Instead, he still seemed quite pressured and started talking about Europe.

"We should also remember that this European integration, a strong sense of unity and a clear new direction on the part of Germany in the field of defense policy mean that Europe as a whole is considerably stronger, and thus Finland," said Niinistö.

The scary feeling I experienced in my spine was due to the contradiction that Niinistö was standing in the middle of Washington, the most powerful military power on earth and probably the galaxy, but he had to vaguely point to Europe when he began to ask who to drive to.

In the debates of politicians, on the other hand, the common defense of Europe in recent years has seemed to be a wonderful cloud of opium. They do it themselves when a NATO solution feels too nervous to do. They are also blowing it at our citizens, especially when too scary noises are beginning to echo from Russia.

Indeed, there is a terrible contradiction in EU defense, with almost all other Western countries relying on NATO and not the EU. That is why we cannot avoid the idea that we Finns are the only nation in Europe so simple that we really think that other EU countries - although they have clearly concreted their money, chain of command, weapons and armor in NATO - are an economic union in the EU instead of NATO.

Niinistö has talked the most about the common defense of the EU. Not in any way to mislead anyone, and not necessarily to calm his nerves, but because he clearly wants the same protection for Finland from the EU defense that others get from NATO. Right from the beginning of his presidency in 2013, Niinistö demanded that “there are no obstacles to the implementation of the Lisbon solidarity clause and the obligation of mutual assistance, but capacity must be created for it”.

When Niinistö says in that obligation, he is referring to the core of the EU's common defense, Article 42 of the Treaty of Lisbon and its subject matter or Article 7.

And what a wonderful text it is!

It starts perfectly for Finland, obliging the EU so that if a member state (theoretically eg Finland) is attacked armed (still, fully theoretically eg Russia), other member states (26 other EU countries armed to the teeth) have an obligation to help the ally with all with the means at their disposal (e.g. bombs so big that the boots smoke all the way to Asia, etc.)!

So that is the piece of the legal text that Niinistö and other Finnish politicians are counting on when they - some under pressure, some hopefully and all very vaguely - start talking about the EU as the organization that might give the right military help to Finland.

After all, money, goods and weapons can be obtained from the EU without any agreements or articles, as the Ukrainians have just noticed for their relief.

Even at the beginning of February, twenty days before the Russian invasion, Niinistö reiterated that "Finland has consistently emphasized the need to clarify the content of this article" and that it is still on the agenda.

So. Niinistö's emergency from clarifying the article is that immediately after the point where the friend is promised to help by all means, the article continues in a way that is very unpleasant for Finland. According to Waters, the obligation 'does not affect the specific nature of the security and defense policy of certain Member States'.

What is worse, the next sentence says, however, that the EU's NATO countries, 21 out of 27, will primarily defend their defense through NATO.

In practice, the additions leave EU countries free to decide for themselves what, how and when, as well as little, much or no help to be given to the polo attacked. Doesn’t sound very binding, nor very military. Sounds like a security guarantee that guarantees money and tricks but doesn’t actually secure.

Therefore, from one decade to the next, Niinistö will have to clarify at least some clarification of the EU's security guarantees and ask other presidents when the EU will develop into a defense community in addition to the economic union.

THESE THOUGHTS IN MY MIND I START EXCAVING OLD NEWSPAPERS FROM THE HS ARCHIVES FROM THE 1990S AND 2000S.

The motive is, of course, the lowest possible. I think that once Finland is in trouble now, with a terribly roaring Russia transforming back into the Soviet Union before our eyes, I would get even low-level satisfaction if I knew who was deprived of EU security guarantees from Finland for years before we even knew we needed them.

Perhaps sometimes even within the EU, there was a figure like the current Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán. Someone who polished Russian military boots with suspicious enthusiasm, even when Russia was completely powerless. Perhaps there is someone who blocked or mitigated attempts to agree on mutual defense at EU meetings.

Start dipping into long, low-security security policy articles. Stuff is rife in our civilian terms of defense and summits in the European metropolises of the Yama recession. The pictures show men with shiny little patent shoes on their feet and sweatballs on their hairline.

Almost the first article coming out of the archives tells how a big meeting was held in Amsterdam on Tuesday, June 1997. HS's EU journalist Jyri Raivio had flown there to report.

And behold, there it will immediately meet, a fatal decision for the future of Finland, right on the front lines of Raivio's reports:

6/18/1997 3:00 AM JYRI RAIVIO, AMSTERDAM. .

As I read the story forward, I suddenly feel like I am looking into some kind of mirror world. In the adventures of the Superman, he sometimes had an opponent, Bizarro, who lived in a Bizarro world where everything was the opposite: the land was a cube, cigarette butts great treasures and beautiful things were hated.

I'm clearly lost there.

Firstly, in 1997 there were two European Union. There was this ordinary EU to which Finland belongs, but in addition there was also a separate Western EU, the Western European Union, or WEU, which included the ten great countries of Western Europe.

Secondly, in this western EU, the much-needed security guarantees were already in place. And there was not even talk of any security guarantees for the midwives, but of a real military duty to help other allies. The security guarantee was similar to that of NATO, down to the article number, i.e. vito. That is exactly what President Niinistö is now missing as Vladimir Putin's shadow falls all over Europe.

However, by 1997, the men in their shoes had noticed that it was actually foolish to maintain two EUs. That is why it was decided in Amsterdam to try to unite.

At the same time, that security guarantee contained in the Western EU could have slipped into this current EU.

Raivio continues to report:

However, the new draft agreements published by the Netherlands this morning also contained a one-and-a-half-page protocol on the EU and the WEU. It was a kind of rough sketch of merging the two organizations ...

However, a country present that was vigilant about such speeches was present at the meeting. "This text will not survive until evening," their diplomat shouted at Raivio.

The country also succeeded. As it got, the plans to unite the two EUs were "watered down", as Raivio reports, and the security guarantees that come with the Western EU were kicked into the darkness of the future.

The country was, of course, Finland.

The Finnish wooden sign was clearly visible in the solution, Raivio writes.

Instead of a common defense obligation, Finland trained the EU in an almost opposite direction, one in which each country is allowed to participate in the defense no matter how amusing or not at all. Soon after Finland became active, the documents on the unification of the unions disappeared from the EU documents, followed by all the tangible concrete timetables for the development of EU defense co-operation.

Jukka Tarkka, Doctor of Political Science, refers to the case when evaluating Docent Markku Salomaa's book on the HS website in 2015.

Salomaa reminds of the bitter stage of history, when Finland, posing with peace, shot to its own feet. At the Amsterdam Summit in 1997, Foreign Minister Tarja Halonen and her Swedish colleague blocked the integration of the WEU of the Western European Union into the EU. It was an opportunity to develop a European NATO within the Union, followed by Sauli Niinistö at least during the presidential election.

It feels confusing to read texts from decades ago. At least I have thought that Finland has always somehow cunningly and wisely tried to build a common EU defense, because it would be easier for Russia to swallow than NATO.

In this Bizarro world, however, Finland seems to have opposed European security guarantees. In other words, it was precisely 1997 that there was no need to fear Russia. It was still three years before Putin was elected, and the country was run by a nice uncle Yeltsin.

I browse through the archives for years to come. Security guarantees are not talked about terribly. Then, in the HS story of December 2003, another summit is described. It seems that other EU countries have not given up. This time the lacquer shoes have walked to Brussels. There, Italy was still trying to get EU security guarantees, but again collided with Finland, the enemy of security guarantees.

The text of the security guarantee presented by Italy to the EU Constitution last week is almost word for word in Article 5 of the WEU Treaty. Italy was really taking Finland and the whole Union on the road marked by the WEU. However, at a weekend meeting of foreign ministers in Naples, Finns suggested that EU members could assess the need to request and provide assistance themselves.

The Italians tried to create an article now called Article 42.7. Finland and a few other EU countries fought against it. At their request, Italian bureaucrats quickly rewrote the safeguards clauses.

The result was a statement in which members undertook to assist the attacked state by all available means. According to a stern squirrel hung on the text at the request of the Finns, this "does not affect the specific nature of the security and defense policy of certain Member States".

In this way, Finland seemed to be able to influence the famous Article 42 and Article 7 thereof. Finland influenced the article by adding, as a mitigation, that vague condition on the “special nature” of “certain Member States”.

The then Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja praised this profusely.

The Italian presidency's new proposal on EU security guarantees must be seen as "a significant response to the criticism of previous proposals by Finland and many other countries," Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja (SD) said on Tuesday night.

President Niinistö has maintained a debate on EU security guarantees throughout his presidency and has demanded clarification from other EU countries on the content of the security guarantees they contain. Prime Minister Sanna Marin (sd), who was appeased by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, was the last to do the same. Von der Leyen widely promised that EU security guarantees would guarantee solidarity and political security, and, in fact, everything but military support.

It seems amusing to think that Finland is now rumoring clarifications from other countries about the EU's security guarantees when it seems to have been relaxing and making it unclear.

Everyone has certainly done their best for Finland's security, but there is still some question about what exactly is the ability of the Finnish political elite to read the future or make the right decisions for it. Even at the threat of posterity, that is their job.

Reading the archives becomes less anesthetic in less than a week, and Finland's apparently divisive behavior in European fields leaves you desperate. Makes mind giving up.

So I call the Institute of Foreign Policy, where researcher Tuomas Iso-Markku could have told me all this without wasting the wonderful spring days of my life in the depths of the archives.

Yes, Finland was very active in avoiding alliances, and yes, there was a big turnaround sometime in the mid-2000s, Iso-Markku says. But it is important to remember that Finland did not do it alone, and that the times were different.

I try to ask about Finland's foreign policy schizophrenia, and what all this Creator looks like in the eyes of other EU countries, but Iso-Markku doesn't go for it.

I therefore ask a little more moderately if neutral thinking was Finland's way of avoiding Soviet occupation, then why it continued so strongly for decades after the Soviet Union went to heaven. So strong that Finland even opposed European security guarantees.

"It must take into account the fact that such ideas can take root quite deeply," Iso-Markku estimates.

“Finland was no longer neutral. Finland became part of the European Union, but Finland continued on this line of military non-alignment, which was seen to have served Finland well in the context of the Cold War, but which was also seen to have a potentially positive impact in the post-Cold War world. ”

According to Iso-Markku, this rather beautiful idea in itself was overturned in two parts. The first signs of change were seen in 2006, and the attitude changed clearly in 2009, when the Treaty of Lisbon and the security guarantee clause contained in it and watered down by Finland entered into force. Iso-Markku does not say that, but then Russia had invaded Georgia and started rivalry in Estonia as well.

The second and final repeal took place in 2014, when Putin first invaded Ukraine.

I will make another call, Erkki Tuomioja, a great foreign policy influencer of that time. I ask him what he thinks now about all this. That now that Finland is the one in need of EU security guarantees the most - especially if NATO still refuses to accept Finland as a member for fear of escalating the situation - it feels like it has been Finland that has been the most in relaxing those security guarantees.

"Everything has to be looked at against its time," says Tuomioja.

Tuomioja was Finland's Foreign Minister in 2003, when Finland watered down the EU's security guarantee article 42.7 by mentioning the “special nature” of “certain countries”.

"It was true that neither the government's line nor the parliamentary line in Finland at that time was such that military security guarantees were specifically required," says Tuomioja.

He recalled that the article was also relaxed by the EU's NATO countries, which did not want to weaken NATO's role.

But in addition to the relaxation of security guarantees, there was a third reason: Sweden.

“The most important thing is that we wanted this to apply to the EU as a whole and that there is no opting out. And here Sweden had told us directly, and possibly Austria and Ireland, that if that [binding safeguard clause] came, then they would be left out. That is why we were pleased with the result, because it kept the EU united. ”

The situation is therefore remarkably reminiscent of the current NATO debate. Sweden's line to neutrality was even stricter than Finland's at the time, and Sweden was therefore also on the path to Finland's security guarantees. Finland chose Sweden in 2003. I don't know if I will choose now.

Finally, I will ask Tuomioja an unfair question, because in a way he has to answer for the whole country, even if he only represents a slice of it. But I still ask.

However, when the Soviet Union popped up, the idea of neutrality continued for decades after its original motive had gone away. Russia and especially Yeltsin were completely friendly and quite harmless to Finland, but still the thinking of neutrality continued. So what was its motive then?

Tuomioja first clarifies that this was a matter of military non-alignment and not of neutrality, which was dropped when Finland joined the EU.

“And probably the motive was that we didn’t want to show up as a member of a bloc that the Soviet Union ... or Russia, considered hostile to. It was also about room for maneuver. That we wanted to maintain room for maneuver in every direction. ”

So it was a matter of room for maneuver, and of staying outside the hostile blocs for Russia?

"Yes. And that if you belong to a military alliance means that you are automatically at war if the military alliance goes to war. ”

I have absorbed Finland's security policy to the brim. Still, I feel like I haven’t seen it from the illusory world like a little Bizarro flash where things are mirror images of themselves.

Finland is neutral because of the Soviet Union, but also for all other reasons. Finland wants EU security guarantees, but destroys them in its cradle and points the finger at Sweden. Finland is part of the West but does not want to belong to the Western blocs because it wants room for maneuver. So obviously to the east.

Here's an interesting essay from yesterday regarding the EU common security and defense policy and how Finland FUBARed it. The original's here, behind the main Finnish newspaper's (Helsingin Sanomat or HS for short) paywall; the translation is by machine and I can't be arsed to clean it up at the moment, but I went through it cursorily and although you'll notice immediately it's a machine translation, it's good enough for now.

Edited March 22, 2022 by dcom

[thefxbip]

I personally fear, that one of the side-effects of this conflict, on the global scale, is the glorification of militaristic culture and of nationalism. Investing time and energy in military instead of investing time and energy in the values that keep democracies healthy and directly prevent wars. War-like mentality spreading everywhere.

Things like respect for human rights, diplomacy, equality, fair justice, good journalism, investment in culture, respect for the environment, a good, self-critical scientific community. Those will always be more helpful to prevent wars and political conflict than any big military, being build up out of paranoia.

Call me an idealist but i am personally an absolute pacifist politically and always will. War is hell period. 

War is the failure of everything of value in humans and in democracy. It's symptomatic of a systematic neglect of democratic and humanist ideals and values over long period of time. 

This has been building up for a looooong time in Russia.

If you don't like this war and you wonder what you can do, my humble suggestion is : keep your own damn country healthy democratically wise. When things slides down, speak up. Don't cooperate with authoritarians. Defend human dignity. Participate in activities that keeps democracies alive and healthy. In any way you can. Because Ukrainians probably wish Russians would have done more to prevent this shit from happening to them.

And Russians themselves are probably starting to think the same with the dictatorial decrees Putin throws left and right these days. And they will be even more once the economy fucking crash.

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by thefxbip

[chenGOD]

26 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

Well Syria, and turning a blind eye on Israel vs Palestine and Saudi vs Yemen for instance, and leaving Afghanistan in complete disarray with increased corruption is right up there sharing the hall of fame with Putin's Ukraine adventure in my book.

Syria is an international clusterfuck of epic proportions to be sure - and Putin's hand is large in that one as well. Israel vs Palestine is a disgrace for the US and Israel. Saudi and Iran interference in Yemen is outside of my caveat on nations who tend to abide by the rules. Afghanistan is another international clusterfuck, and trying to place the blame at any one particular nation's feet is a futile effort. The US had been in the country for 20 years at that point, and the fact that the Afghan administration had done nothing to secure the legitimacy of their government and institutions speaks to the rampant corruption in the country.

The difference of course being that for the US - these were matters of foreign policy conducted by numerous individuals. For Russia, there was never any doubt as to who was numero uno.

45 minutes ago, cichlisuite said:

It is well documented that the NATO expansion, direct meddling and lobbying, and increased military industry spending by US was aimed at weakening European military industry.

The US has been saying for years that Europe needs to increase defense spending (that's just a two year snapshot from 2012-2014). Sure, they may have sold arms to EU, but the EU is clearly capable of producing their own arms. Since the top 4 nations the US sells to are not in the EU (actually top 5 I guess, since the UK is not in the EU), it seems like it may have been a bit of both encouraging them to purchase arms from the US but also increase their own self-sufficiency. Regardless, Europe (including the EU) has long been an eager partner in NATO, so it's hardly a surprise that the US sells there.

Recent announcements by Germany will certainly increase sales in the short-term, but the Germans are more than capable of producing world class military equipment, as is the EU writ large (as an entity, not individual nations per se).

As well, the Russian invasion has spectacularly backfired in terms of limiting NATO expansionism. As you point out, the military is still a sore necessity in this day and age. With an increased appetite, you can expect sales to increase in the short term and domestic production to ramp up in the long term.

[chenGOD]

33 minutes ago, dcom said:

almost all other Western countries relying on NATO and not the EU

I don't understand this part - NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the overlap between European countries and NATO is substantial - why wouldn't you rely on the organization you've been funding and participating in since 1949?

[dcom]

5 minutes ago, chenGOD said:

I don't understand this part - NATO stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the overlap between European countries and NATO is substantial - why wouldn't you rely on the organization you've been funding and participating in since 1949?

It's complicated. Very much so. Very.

Edited March 22, 2022 by dcom

[zlemflolia]

 

[thefxbip]

2 hours ago, chenGOD said:

As you point out, the military is still a sore necessity in this day and age.

I challenge this way of thinking.

The necessity is to strengthen democratic values and respect of human dignity. Neither of them will be achieved by military as the military as an institution, with its strict hierarchical and antagonistic way of seeing the world is precisely one of the very cause of the deep instabilities and atrocities in the world.

Look around. How many coups do we need? how many invasions? how many genocides? how many colonial disasters? how many Generals turning into dictators? how many Dictators using the army and the police as his personal force to stay in power and crush democracy? how many military backed disasters before we learned that maybe the military IN ITSELF isn't a good idea? that it constantly throughout ALL of history, generates a very effective mean for destruction and atrocities?

Military spending and culture is symptomatic of giving up the true democratic ideals and means to a stable society.

Spend that money and energy elsewhere i say.

Edited March 23, 2022 by thefxbip

[zlemflolia]

6 minutes ago, thefxbip said:

I challenge this way of thinking.

The necessity is to strengthen democratic values and respect of human dignity. Neither of them will be achieved be military as the military, hierarchical and antagonistic way of seeing the world is precisely one of the very cause of the deep instabilities and atrocities in the world.

Military spending is symptomatic of giving up the true democratic ideals and means to a stable society.

big idealism.  i wonder how democratic and happy the people of the world would be if they all got rid of their militaries and got invaded by CIA Nazi sleeper agents and staybehind armies.  many countries would be immediately brought much "freedom" by the US.  military is the only method of deterrence, any country that gives up their nukes learns this fast

if dprk gave up their nukes they would immediately be invaded by the US like what happened before.  if china or russia gave up theirs they would be immediately invaded and destroyed

Edited March 23, 2022 by ilqx hermolia xpli

[thefxbip]

And before anyone tells me about how unrealistic or unreasonable or not practical this is let me tell you this:

Number of people killed in war by pacifists/war objectors: probably 0

Number of people killed in war and various events by military institutions and people in them: countless and still counting...

It might not be easy but we need to disarm the fuck out of this planet.

Edited March 23, 2022 by thefxbip

[zlemflolia]

1 hour ago, thefxbip said:

And before anyone tells me about how unrealistic or unreasonable or not practical this is let me tell you this:

Number of people killed in war by pacifists/war objectors: probably 0

Number of people killed in war and various events by military institutions and people in them: countless and still counting...

It might not be easy but we need to disarm the fuck out of this planet.

imagine if stalin was a pacifist the entire slavic people would have been genocided while the US and british smiled

[thefxbip]

 

[may be rude]

dude's a shill. i'm calling it

[zlemflolia]