#instead of nato expanding eastward

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Where exactly do you stand on the Ukraine issue because I keep getting mixed messages from your blog.

no, i've been consistent on this from the beginning.

i don't care.

i see both sides and i sympathize with both sides. however, i don't think america should be involved. let them fight it out or negotiate or whatever. unless the world wants to formally recognize america's hegemony, and they offer us tribute or something, i really don't feel an obligation to protect any country that we don't have a treaty with or any interest in.

[xtruss]

How Aggressive, Exclusive and Outdated North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) Differs From Defensive, Inclusive and Timely Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

— Laurent Michelon | July 12, 2024

Cartoon: Carlos Latuff

Two important security-related summits took place in July: the NATO summit in Washington DC this week, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit ended in Astana, Kazakhstan last week. These two inter-governmental organizations, although both claiming to be defensive in nature, could not be more different.

As Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's First Secretary General, Famously Said, NATO Was Created to "Keep the Soviet Union Out, the Americans in, and the Germans Down." It should have disbanded with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact in 1991. Instead, it immediately morphed into an imperial entity that spread to Eastern Europe despite assurances given to Gorbachev that NATO "would not expand one inch eastward," becoming an imperial occupation army expanding far away from its "North-Atlantic" shores, fostering forever wars in Europe, the Middle East, Afghanistan and now Asia and other ventures in the Asia-Pacific.

On the contrary, the SCO was since its inception a defensive organization designed to fight the "Three Evils" of Separatism, Extremism and Terrorism that emerged in Central Asia, the vicinity of Russia and China, that was destabilized by the Anglo-American hegemon.

The two summits taking place this month greatly differ in the issues they tackle, and reveal the widening divide between an isolated West refusing to acknowledge the ascent of a multipolar world, and a rising Global South that is waking up to say no to the Anglo-American hegemon.

Regarding the NATO summit, the first is its obsession with Ukraine, considering the fact that it is not even a member state of NATO, nor of the EU. By endlessly pumping weapons into Ukraine, and providing it with a tentative roadmap to "official membership," NATO is showing that it does not have a genuine interest in peace in the region. It also expects from the EU a long-term financial pledge for Ukraine, which amounts to economic suicide for European economies, and is not justified by anything other than Anglo-American neo-colonial ideology: the bleeding of the EU's economy for the conquest and reconstruction of a colony.

The second issue tackled at this week's NATO summit is the crushing of dissent within its own ranks. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's visit to Moscow and Beijing to discuss a peace deal has sparked fury in EU and NATO countries, making them rush to explain that Orban lacked legitimacy and a mandate from the EU to negotiate a truce with Putin.

As Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay, NATO's First Secretary General, Famously Said, North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO) Was Created to "Keep the Soviet Union Out, the Americans in, and the Germans Down."

Here again, Western leaders' reaction shows that the collective West will not allow negotiation with both belligerents in the same room to achieve a deal that would not be brokered by the West. What the Anglo-American hegemon and its European vassal states want is to fortify their position in Ukraine, secure their access to the huge lithium deposits of Donbass, and use the Ukrainian people as a saber to weaken Russia.

It is in stark contrast with the recent summit of the SCO in Astana. This year, apart from security concerns still topping the agenda, the summit was a forum for discussions and agreements on the economic prosperity of all members, the opening to all Eurasian neighbors regardless of their level of economic development or their ideology, as long as they contribute to common security and good neighborliness, and the inter-connectivity of the several corridors of logistics that crisscross the Eurasian landmass, that need to be connected to become a viable alternative to the maritime route that goes through the Malacca and Suez choke points.

On the account of enlarging of the SCO, Vladimir Putin went as far as saying that SCO was opened to membership applications from all Eurasian countries, event those that might already be members of NATO.

The facts are before our eyes: NATO is bellicose toward outsiders, autocratic with its members, and does not seem to have a goal other than expansion and the encirclement of Russia and China. Although it is called the North-Atlantic Treaty Organization, it did not shy away from considering the opening of a representative office in Tokyo last year, a move that was unexpectedly blocked by France.

On the other hand, the SCO is inclusive, respectful of different opinions and cultures, does not impose economic or democratic criteria on applicants, and comes across as a democratic inter-governmental organization that does not have a top-down power structure like NATO has.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the members of SCO are not considering leaving the organization, unlike some NATO members such as France, which has already exited NATO once, in 1966, and a sizeable number of its population and politicians would like to see it happen again. Hungary is also reassessing its level of participation in NATO due to its disagreement on the war in Ukraine, and so does Turkey.

This trend, which we can imagine would see some NATO members soon becoming SCO candidates, with or without leaving NATO, could tip the balance of power between an aggressive, exclusive and outdated NATO on one side, and a defensive, inclusive and timely SCO on the other side, with the latter neutralizing the former.

The author is a former diplomat, advertising executive and entrepreneur who has worked 25 years in Greater China. He is the author of "Understanding the relation between China and the West" published in France in 2022, and soon to be released in its Chinese version.

[dertaglichedan]

Kremlin: Russia, NATO Now in 'Direct Confrontation'

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/kremlin-russia-nato/2024/04/04/id/1159771/

Russia and NATO are now in "direct confrontation," the Kremlin said as the U.S.-led alliance marked its 75th anniversary on Thursday.

NATO's successive waves of eastern enlargement are a fixation of President Vladimir Putin, who went to war in Ukraine two years ago with the stated aim of preventing the alliance from coming closer to Russia's borders. Instead, the war has galvanized NATO, which has expanded again with the entry of Finland and Sweden.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters: "In fact, relations have now slipped to the level of direct confrontation."

NATO was "already involved in the conflict surrounding Ukraine (and) continues to move towards our borders and expand its military infrastructure towards our borders," he said.

Putin has repeatedly said that Russia was cheated by the West in the aftermath of the Cold War as Moscow's Warsaw Pact alliance was disbanded but NATO moved eastwards by taking in former pact members and the three Baltic states that had been part of the Soviet Union.

The West rejects that version, saying NATO is a defensive alliance and joining it was a democratic choice by countries that had shaken off decades of Communist rule.

NATO says it is helping Ukraine fight for its survival in the face of Russian aggression, and has provided Kyiv with advanced weapons, training and intelligence.

[aspiringbelle]

In the 1990's, I came upon the World Game Institute, one of the projects of architect and engineer Buckminster Fuller. It was designed to encourage people to come up with solutions to various global problems, and help implement them.

Here is a screenshot of one of their proposals from the turn of the millennium.

At the time, the Cold War was over. There were calls for a peace dividend. The US had made some progress, but Republicans in Congress pushed for more military spending. Bill Clinton was happy to abandon his original position to get reelected. (In addition, he began NATO's drang nach Osten, lied about Iraq's WMD (a crime not mentioned by Republicans), and violated the War Powers Act over Kosovo.)

Then came 9/11. Rather than treat Al-Quaida as the terrorists and criminals they were, the US sent out the military. Then the US invaded Iraq, based on lies.

During that time, there were talks regarding the Conventional Forces Treaty, seeking to expand it. This would have reduced the military size and funds of every nation in Europe. (This includes US and Canadian forces based there.) The US and NATO opposed ratifying it. Why? They were upset that some Russian peacekeepers were not included. (Said Russian peacekeepers were in Transnistria (which had declared independence from Moldova), South Ossetia and Abkhazia (both of which had declared independence from Georgia). Said peacekeepers were in those nations at the request of both the nations that had declared independence, and the nations that sought to keep the territory.) At least, that was the reason they gave. (In 2008, Georgia, with US moral support (and possibly more?), invaded South Ossetia, about a day after the Georgians ordered a cease-fire. One of the first targets of Georgian forces was the barracks of the Russian peacekeepers. Russia fought back, and drove Georgian forces out of both regions.)

Come 2008, the US could have changed under Obama. Instead of seeking peace, he listened to Biden and Clinton, bombed Libya (aiding Al-Quaida and violating the War Powers Act), continued sending NATO Eastward, sent arms to Syrian rebels (some linked to Al-Quaida), and helped fund regime change in Ukraine. (The US supported the protests, spent billions to influence opposition groups, and when the armed mobs forced the elected president to flee, they chose to recognize the new government.) Obama only withdrew from Iraq after Iraq refused to approve US troops staying (Iraq refused approval thanks to the leaks from Chelsea Manning).

In 2016, Trump promised an "America First" foreign policy. Instead, he listened to Bolton, Haley, and Gorka. He continued pushing NATO eastward, and demanded that NATO members spend 2% or more on their militaries. He sent US troops into Syria to occupy territory, and bombed Syria at the word of the terrorist group formerly known as al-Quaida in Syria, and despite evidence from UN whistleblowers.

You know that 2% spending plan? Most of Europe is in the EU. EU fiscal policy is not set in each nation's capitol, but in Brussels. Said policy is designed to not allow significant deficit spending, without EU approval. With the demands for increased spending, the member states of both (now including Sweden and Finland) have to cut other spending to balance, like social spending.

Now we are here. Biden is demanding billions for aid to Ukraine for its war on the Donbass (and other regions that voted to leave), Israel for its ethnic cleansing of Gaza, and for Taiwan to defend itself against a possible attack. Republicans are demanding more military spending, only refusing to support Ukraine because Biden backs them. Many nations in the West are arming more.

And all this ignores the massive amount of CO2 and other emissions from the military, to say nothing about other damage.

Will this change? Or will we continue destroying ourselves through pollution, war, violence, and debt?

[mariacallous]

As tensions flare between China and the United States over Taiwan, most recently over Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen’s meeting with U.S. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy in California on April 5, there are growing concerns about the potential for conflict. Such fears have been elevated by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in the face of U.S. opposition, a war that Beijing has been closely observing for its own purposes. Like Russia in Ukraine, China sees the United States as the chief force stopping it getting what it wants on this issue.

There have been countless studies over the lessons that Beijing could draw from the Ukraine conflict and apply to its own potential military intervention in Taiwan. But instead of focusing solely on the military dimension of Russia’s war in Ukraine, there is a more subtle—and perhaps more important—element of Moscow’s strategy in the conflict that China could be adapting in its efforts to absorb Taiwan. This element concerns the use of selective economic and diplomatic statecraft to counter any U.S.-led resistance, and Beijing is wasting no time in applying such lessons from the war in Ukraine to build up its own leverage over Taiwan.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has demonstrated two particularly relevant facets of U.S. strategy. The first is U.S. support of Ukraine, primarily in the form of military backing via weapons shipments and logistical assistance, as well as in broader political and economic terms. Such support has been maintained over the course of the prolonged conflict, with the United States and its NATO allies sustaining and even increasing various forms of aid for Ukraine over the past year. This has served to slow down and even reverse some of Russia’s territorial gains, while proving to Moscow that Western solidarity with Ukraine is not easily broken.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has to take into account the potential for U.S. military support for Taiwan in aiding Taiwanese resistance in the event that Beijing tries to take the island by military means. But the Chinese government also has to take into account the potential military, economic, and diplomatic support to Taiwan from other countries allied with the United States, including regional allies such as Japan and Australia.

A protracted conflict would be a nightmare for China, not least because seizing an island is more of an all-or-nothing deal than a land invasion. Indeed, Taiwanese officials have themselves drawn this connection, with Taiwanese Defense Minister Chiu Kuo-cheng stating that “the Russia-Ukraine war has brought great lessons” for the Chinese, who “will definitely seek speed.”

But the second element of U.S. strategy—the attempted isolation of Russia from the international system, especially economically—has been much more complicated and less successful. While the United States and European Union have passed sanctions against Russia and have diversified away from Russian energy imports, most non-Western countries have not followed suit. Indeed, countries like China, India, the Gulf states, and even NATO member Turkey have increased economic and especially energy ties with Russia since the conflict began early last year. This has enabled the Kremlin to prevent an economic or political collapse and to sustain its war effort in Ukraine, while avoiding the type of global isolation and repudiation of Russia that the United States and its allies were hoping to achieve.

Russia’s economic pivot did not come suddenly. Indeed, Moscow began concertedly expanding its economic and diplomatic ties eastward nearly a decade ago, dating back to its initial foray into Ukraine in the beginning of 2014. That was the true start of the Ukrainian conflict, in which Russia responded to the ouster of a pro-Moscow government in Kyiv in the Euromaidan revolution with its annexation of Crimea and support of a separatist rebellion in Eastern Ukraine.

Following these events and the subsequent diplomatic fallout between Moscow and the West, Russia ramped up its economic engagement with China, expanding ties in the energy sphere and launching the massive Power of Siberia pipeline to send natural gas exports eastward. Russia intervened militarily in the Syrian civil war on behalf of the Assad regime, which placed Moscow at the seat of many diplomatic tables in the Middle East. Russia expanded security ties with states across Africa and Latin America, opportunistically building relationships with governments outside of the pro-Western paradigm.

As a result of all this diplomatic, economic, and security legwork, Russia now finds itself much less isolated than the United States or West would like it to be, despite its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While Moscow has few direct supporters of its Ukrainian war effort outside of states like Belarus and Iran, most countries outside the West are not willing to sacrifice their economic or security ties with Russia despite such calls from the United States, whatever their view may be on the Ukrainian conflict itself. Consequently, Moscow has greater room for maneuver on the Ukrainian front, despite its military setbacks and persistent pressure from the United States and its allies.

It is this part of Russia’s playbook on Ukraine that may prove particularly relevant for Beijing. Taking into account the constraints and blowback of an outright military invasion of Taiwan, China could instead seek to achieve its objectives related to Taiwan in more subtle ways, whether through direct economic pressure, maritime interdictions, or manipulating Taiwan’s supply chain via cargo inspections and port redirection. And while an outright military invasion of Taiwan could have tremendous costs for Beijing, Russia’s war in Ukraine has shown that this does not necessarily make such an action prohibitive.

In any such scenario, the Russian case has proven to China that it is useful to have a constellation of countries that would be at the very least neutral in the event of any type of intervention in Taiwan. And here, China has already laid much groundwork with its global economic and diplomatic outreach, encapsulated by its “Go Out” policy initiated near the turn of the century and the Belt and Road Initiative launched in 2013. Such efforts by China certainly had their own myriad economic and political motivations beyond the Taiwan issue, but Beijing has now seen from the Ukrainian conflict that they could have the added benefit of keeping many countries on the sidelines in the event of any type of a Taiwanese intervention. Even among Western countries, Beijing is probably happy at the aftermath of French President Emmanuel Macron’s visit to Beijing, in which he echoed Chinese talking points on Europe’s divergence from America.

In this context, it is notable how China has ramped up its economic and diplomatic ties with select non-Western states over the course of the past year. Take, for example, China’s recent mediation of the Saudi Arabia-Iran diplomatic agreement reached on March 10, which itself was preceded by months of Beijing’s diplomatic engagement with Riyadh and Tehran that included economic deals with both countries. China has also further expanded energy ties with Russia over the past year, with Xi holding a high-profile meeting with Putin last month to tout such ties.

It may be no coincidence that such countries are key energy providers to Taiwan, with Saudi Arabia serving as the island’s largest oil exporter and Russia serving as a major provider of coal and natural gas supplies. One measure that China could take is to leverage its relationships with these energy suppliers in order to pressure Taiwan, which is critically dependent on imports for 98 percent of its energy supply (and associated semiconductor production). In both cases, Beijing may be able to count on Moscow and Riyadh’s neutrality in the event of an intervention in Taiwan, or perhaps even their cooperation on efforts to redirect Taiwan-bound energy shipments through Chinese ports as a means to further constrain Taipei’s room for maneuver.

Whether or not China chooses to pursue the military option on Taiwan, Beijing is taking a page out of the Russian playbook to cultivate economic and diplomatic ties outside of the United States and its allies to better prepare itself for any scenario. Planning does not mean an invasion, or even a coercion attempt, is inevitable, and there are plenty of factors that may constrain Beijing from pulling the trigger. But Chinese diplomatic efforts may nevertheless offer hints about the course of any future moves against its neighbor.

[tanadrin]

This thread on twitter (yes, sorry, I know it’s twitter, but it links to a lot of interesting stuff) makes some points that I think undercut the “this war started bc NATO expansion provoked Russia” argument a little bit. His major points include

you can’t erase the agency of eastern European countries that pushed for NATO membership (not the other way around)

NATO was initially kind of against the idea

integration with the CIS was a bad deal for former USSR states, which didn’t want to be vassalized by Russia

NATO has if anything avoided directly opposing Russian military interventions

Ukraine was viewed as likely to be a major point of conflict in Europe before NATO expanded eastward, or included the Baltic states

Putin has overtly imperialist views, irrespective of NATO expansion

According to an offensive realist interpretation, NATO’s failure might instead be *not expanding fast enough,* while Russia was too weak to build a large sphere of influence, and should have integrated Ukraine (which it has rejected doing in the past), which would likely have prevented the current war

(I also think this contra-NATO viewpoint engages in some false equivalency between Russia and NATO; like, liberal democracy really is better than authoritarian kleptocracy, esp. for the people who live under it, so I don’t think the “NATO[/the EU] is just the US’s sphere of influence” argument holds much water with me.)

[continuations]

Fighting the Russian Invasion of Ukraine

Other than a few tweets I have stayed quiet on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine as I was reading a ton to try and form an opinion. I am writing this post as much for myself as anyone else, as writing helps me clarify my thinking and also records it so I can go back to it at a later point. For those who just want the conclusion up front: I believe NATO needs to push back hard on Russia now, including supplying much more equipment to Ukraine. We also urgently need to stop our energy purchases from Russia.

First, what about any historic promises to Russia not to expand NATO eastward and aren’t we at fault here? Shouldn’t the Ukraine have been guided to a neutrality stance instead? Sure, that absolutely could have been a better approach but happens to be completely irrelevant now as we will never know how that would have played out. The same, incidentally, goes for the opposite view, which is that we should have already had Ukraine in NATO by now. Most of the people writing about these alternatives are some version of: “if you had only done what I had been suggesting there wouldn’t be a war today.” Again: totally unknowable and also irrelevant.

Why am I saying it’s irrelevant? Because we are not dealing with a rational actor on the other side but with a deranged dictator. Putin has been in power way too long and has killed off opposition leaders. He also doesn’t appear to be in the most stable place mentally, as a clear-headed Putin is unlikely to have let all those pictures get out of him sitting way on one end of a super long table making him appear sick or paranoid. Putin has time and again revealed his ambitions in writing and in speeches to build a Russian world that includes many of the places that have previously been part of the empire/union. Ignoring those expressions is like ignoring Hitler’s “Mein Kampf,” where he laid out his ambitions.

What about the nuclear threat? Born in Germany in 1967, I grew up with that threat still very much on everyone’s mind and have often found myself surprised by how much it had receded into the background. First, I believe that there is a non-zero risk of a nuclear war and that’s been the case ever since we had large arsenals of nuclear weapons (another reason to try to live your life well every day). Second, unless he’s managed to change the system, Putin cannot simply push a button and launch nukes. According to detailed descriptions of the set up, the Russian code book is in three parts, all of which need to be assembled to arm weapons and Putin has only one third of that. Third, Putin is already calling sanctions an act of war. So to think that there is some bright line on one side of which we are safe and on the other we are doomed makes no sense. Fourth, the nuclear threat is no different if Putin were to attack a NATO country and so you really would have to believe that he would stop at Ukraine (counter his own words). So yeah, it sucks to have this threat out there but it ain’t going away and we will only come closer to it no matter what. Put differently, this risk is going up with inaction, not down.

Pushing back hard now will make this war go longer and cost more human lives. So why do it? There is no endgame in Ukraine right now that doesn’t result in massive bloodshed. Does anyone seriously think the Ukrainians will just happily be ruled by a puppet regime installed by Moscow? If this war drags on there is a real chance that Putin is in fact toppled, as he and the war are clearly unpopular in Russia. And if he’s not, then at least the chances of a subsequent attempt to invade a NATO member such as Estonia are diminished dramatically (not because Putin himself might not attempt it, but because the opposition around him can grow).

So I find myself in the hawkish position here. I would, however, add that we should focus on much more targeted sanctions than we have. Russia is very much a controlled media environment and it does not help if citizens there start to believe the West is targeting them without reason, driving them to support Putin. Our two biggest levers as going after oligarchs (by the way here I think freezing assets is much better than seizing them outright -- what’s the point, if oligarchs think they can never have them back?) and stopping our energy purchases. The latter is going to hurt us a lot and if we are at all serious about supporting Ukraine we have to be willing to pay that price. Right now we have the worst possible combination: targeting the broad population while at the same time still giving tons of money to the Putin regime every day.

The second order effects of this war are likely to be terrible. The Ukraine is a major food producer and would need to be seeding right now. That’s likely to be massively disrupted if not outright impossible. Given the amounts involved we are talking about more than just a spike in prices. There is a high chance of famines that might kill thousands if not millions of people. Along with this will come political unrest and destabilization in many more parts of the world.

All in all then it is hard to overestimate the extent to which this will get worse before it gets better. Despite all of this there are also reasons for hope. There’s been an awakening globally to just how dangerous a dictator Putin is (something that had been denied by too many for far too long). I admire the Ukrainians who are willing to fight for their freedom and the Russians who are openly demonstrating against the war, despite the threat of draconian punishment. They all deserve our every support.

[warsofasoiaf]

I appreciate your long response. But, I still don't see how it refutes a claim that today's crisis in Ukraine is a result of Nato's expansion.

To start with, in the article you linked, Gorbachev ends his answer by saying "The decision for the U.S. and its allies to expand NATO into the east was decisively made in 1993. I called this a big mistake from the very beginning. It was definitely a violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990. With regards to Germany, they were legally enshrined and are being observed." The difference between violating a "tacit agreement" and violating "the spirit of assurances made to us" would seem to be a semantic one to me, but I'm ready to corrected if I'm missing something.

And earlier in the article, Gorbachev says "Today we need to admit that there is a crisis in European (and global) politics. One of the reasons, albeit not the only reason, is a lack of desire on the part of our Western partners to take Russia’s point of view and legal interests in security into consideration. They paid lip service to applauding Russia, especially during the Yeltsin years, but in deeds they didn’t consider it. I am referring primarily to NATO expansion, missile defense plans...I would advise Western leaders to thoroughly analyze all of this, instead of accusing Russia of everything."

Next, the Visegard and Vilnius groups being self-driven does not disprove the current crisis in Ukraine being a result of Nato's expansion eastward. Both can be true. And, I did not say anything about their actions not being self-driven, on the contrary I think that's one of the things to balance with the necessity of not having a war. The fact is, expanding a military alliance mostly run by the U.S. right up to Russia's border as far east as we can is a provocative act from Russia's POV, and it's easy to see why.

If I can speak frankly myself for a moment, I think what you're saying is parroting the imperialist talking points and apologies made by neocons. If one mentions how the U.S. constantly tries to expand its reach, encircling other countries with military alliances and bases, missiles, etc. and how this might be provocative, one is accused of repeating something cooked up by Putin, or omitting russian actions in Transnistria, Georgia, and Chechnya.

Let me be clear, I'm not excusing or whitewashing any Russian crimes or claiming Russia is a bastion of democracy or anything else. What I'm saying is very simple: it's a provocative act to expand a hostile military alliance up to Russia's borders, and it's obvious that the current crisis in Ukraine is a result of Russian desire not to let this last piece of their buffer zone fall into the hands of the west. As John Mearshimer says, Putin would rather wreck Ukraine than let the west have it.

"Simply put, the idea that Ukraine doesn't deserve its own say in its foreign policy because the Soviet Union was invaded in 1941 or Napoleon invaded in 1812..." I'm sorry, but I feel like that's just a strawman you've erected. I never advocated for removing Ukraine's sovereignty. What I'm saying is, the U.S. obsession with expanding Nato right up to Russia's borders and incorporating as many countries as possible into the U.S.'s globe-spanning empire of military alliances, is a rash and dangerous act. Russia (another nuclear power!) will feel more threatened when U.S. troops are everywhere along its border. The U.S. has never tried to protect Ukraine's neutrality through other means than incorporating it into Nato (which part of Ukraine doesn't even want).

For the last point: you don't buy that it's "certainly possible" for there to be large conflict between Ukraine and Russia due in part to ethnic Russians in Ukraine-- Isn't that part of what's happening now though? Estonia entered NATO during a period when Russia was much weaker and didn't have the means to resist effectively, and I actually still think it was provocative to bring Estonia in. The situation in Ukraine is different.

And that's a remarkably cavalier attitude to have about nuclear war-- "It hasn't happened yet, so we'll just keep on expanding NATO and ignore any risk of large-scale conflict". Even a small chance of war between the U.S. and Russia is too much and is something we should strive to avoid. The notion that our military alliances must constantly expand to encircle our enemies is going to lead to conflict sooner or later.

You seem content to risk it based on the fact that it hasn't happened yet.

I'm really not sure how to make it any clearer. An agreement is an agreement, it's something that's established when two sides come together and agree to do. And that's what you said happened, which Gorbachev refutes.

It's not a strawman argument, you had mentioned that Russia had "been invaded many times" as a significant contributor to their insecurity. My rebuttal is that every country has this problem in their history; the security dilemma is a widespread problem not just with Russia and NATO, but plenty of other countries. So I can't accept mere borders with enemy nations or alliances as a reason to treat this problem differently, it's a common problem. Now, if you want to say that Russian perspectives are not being considered, that's a perfectly acceptable argument. I even said that Russia had "valid concerns." It's a perfectly fine argument - I don't believe that Russia's concerns justify their actions nor do I think they are a greater influence than Russian aggression in its surrounding countries in the early 1990's, but there's nothing wrong with saying that Russian anxieties regarding NATO enlargement have gone unaddressed or underaddressed. There are actually systems that can address these issues, observation, arms control, even de-militarized zones, but the security dilemma is no reason to treat this as a unique problem because it isn't one.

A bit of unsolicited but friendly debate club-type advice: it's not enough just to say "I think you are doing this," you also have to make an argument as to how that is true. If I'm just "parroting the imperialist talking points," you have to say why that's the case, or why it's not just a conclusion I've reached after weighing the evidence. I understand the impulse, I just did it to you and so you attempt to do the same, although as a point of order I must mention that I accused Putin of rewriting history to omit Russian actions, not you. However, when I had said you were just "simply repeating..." I had explained that what you were saying was factually incorrect - there was no agreement as per Gorbachev. Just like later in this response, you mention that: "(t)he U.S. has never tried to protect Ukraine's neutrality through other means than incorporating it into Nato." That statement isn't true - the USA has attempted to maintain Ukrainian security without NATO membership. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum explicitly was meant to establish security assurances, fix Ukraine's borders and maintain their territorial integrity, and facilitate the turnover of the Soviet nuclear weapons that were in Ukraine's territory at the time of the Soviet Union's dissolution (a win for nuclear non-proliferation for both the USA and the Russian Federation), and Partnership for Peace program was established explicitly to establish a new security arrangement within Europe with Russian input, which had a framework established with Ukraine also in 1994. It's these things that you bring up that cause me this concern, because these are things that aren't factually true (the latter grievously so) but are frequently cited by Putin in an attempt to revise history.

But now on to the salient point, why I can't say that NATO enlargement caused the crisis in Ukraine - because the timeline doesn't sync up. Ukranian membership into NATO stalled out in 2008-2010. When Yanukovych came to power, he opted not to pursue membership in favor of the "partnership" arrangement, establishing bilateral security arrangements. Public polling at the time supported this change of posture, Ukrainians were decisively supportive of not joining NATO, with unpopularity figures typically ranging from 30 to 50 points underwater. So as far as this time period is concerned, NATO isn't expanding into Ukraine. Following the Euromaidan protests and Yanukovych's ouster, Yatseniuk had announced no change in the NATO-Ukraine relationship was intended by the government - they would continue the partnership. It was only in August 2014, after the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, that the Yatseniuk government announced a change in its policy direction. Polling also matches this change in posture - pro-NATO sentiment in polling rose only after the Russian annexation of Crimea. If NATO enlargement had caused the Ukranian crisis, then changes regarding NATO membership would happen before Russian action, not after. A far more likely scenario for Ukraine's change in posture places the onus on Russia - Crimea was annexed by Russia and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum was broken, so Ukraine sought to renew the stalled out NATO talks because they think it would provide a stronger deterrent.

And no, I was countering your claim re: Estonia. Your argument was "Ukraine has a large Russian population and large-scale conflict between Ukraine and Russia is certainly possible" as a reason to avoid NATO membership because it might cause a war between Russia and NATO. which I counter by saying "No, Estonia fulfills these criteria in a much greater degree and their membership in NATO has not caused war between Russia and NATO." It's not being cavalier, I'm just demanding more evidence than an assertion which has not proven true in the past. You've countered by saying that the situation is different, that Russia is stronger and more likely to intervene. That's almost certainly true, but why should Russia be permitted to intercede in Ukraine because of its ethnic Russian minority? There aren't any anti-Russian pogroms to provoke humanitarian intervention. Doesn't Ukraine have the right to seek out methods by which they can maintain their territorial integrity? Why does Russia get to provoke insecurity in Ukraine to promote its own?

-SLAL

[rauthschild]

The Dark Suits Rules the U.S. 

Vladimir Putin states aloud what aware people have come to realize:the dark suits of the NWO make up the Deep State and rule the U.S. & its puppet presidents. Dark suits run the U.S. and whatever figurehead puppet president that gets installed in the White House.

The same goes for many countries, including Russia, the home of President Vladimir Putin himself.

However, there is something distinctly and extraordinarily entrenched about the Shadow Government, Parallel Government or Deep State in the USA, which is of course what Putin was referring to in the below video.

FULL interview HERE...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=XP3D1sUSuzg&feature=emb_logo

The dark suits are the unelected bureaucracy or true ruling class that stays in office no matter which party on the spectrum is temporarily in power.

The dark suits are the international bankers. The dark suits are the mighty MIC (Military Intelligence Complex), the sprawling collection of 16 agencies (including the nefarious NSA and CIA, lesser known but still massive agencies like the DIA and NGA, and ominous agencies like the NRO [whose mission patches proudly proclaim mottos like "We Own the Night"]).

The diabolical influence of these dark suits can already be seen in the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, e.g. in the disgraceful ways Trump has flip-flopped more than a fish out of water on a multitude of issues.

Those aware of how the game works can see that the dark suits have already got to Trump.

Putin Exposes the Reality of the Dark Suits

In a recent interview (May 30th 2017, above video) with French media outlet Le Figaro, Putin joked about those in dark suits telling every successive and incoming U.S. presidential administration exactly what to do:

"You know, I've communicated with one U.S. president, and with the second, and with the third… presidents come and go but the politics remains the same.

Do you know why that is? Because the bureaucracy has a lot of power. So a person is elected, he comes with his ideas.

Then people with briefcases come to visit him - well dressed, in dark suits, kind of like mine. Except instead of a red tie it's black or navy. And then they explain what to do, and the whole rhetoric changes, you see?

This happens from one administration to the next."

The dark suits ensure the agenda, the New World Order agenda of a globalized central dictatorship with a,

world army

world bank

world carbon tax

world digital currency

genetically modified and microchipped population,

...always stays on course no matter which puppet is in power.

The ever eastwards-expanding NATO, who recently absorbed Montenegro into its ranks.

But it's purely for defense … right?

Image credit: InspireToChangeWorld.com

NATO's Internal Contradictions

Putin also remarked on NATO's internal contradictions:

"What interested me, from the recent NATO summit, is that they stated that they wished to improve relations with Russia.

Why then increase the defense budget? Who are you going to war against? There are some internal contradictions here - but it's none of our business. You decide within NATO who should be paid and how much - we're not worried about it.

We look after our own defense capability, we do it well and with a vision for the future. We are assured in ourselves."

Like Government in general, NATO needs an enemy in order to justify its own existence.

Logically, that enemy has to be Russia, since NATO has already absorbed many Western and Atlantic nations into its organization. It just gobbled up Montenegro in the Balkans to ensure Russia doesn't get too much of a foothold there.

In the beginning, NATO was set up to stop the spread of Soviet communism into the West via Europe. If Western leaders suddenly embraced Russia and begin to cooperate with it rather than demonize it, NATO would become irrelevant and, dare I say it… obsolete.

Speaking of obsolete, remember what Trump said about NATO and "obsolete"?

Click above image...

Trump:

"NATO is no longer obsolete" (after the dark suits spoke to him)

The Mythical Russian Threat

So it suits the Western leaders of the world right now to continue propagating the myth of the grave "Russian threat", both, for foreign policy (justifies military spending, buildup and wars) for domestic policy (justifies more draconian surveillance and laws in the name of stopping "Russian interference" in the election, as famously happened in the U.S. but also cropped up in France)

A constant theme of Putin's message for over a decade now has been for the nations of the world to unite against terrorism:

"First you invent [the mythical Russian threat], then you scare yourselves on this basis formulate policy.

This kind of policy has no future - there is only a future in a policy of cooperation across all spheres, including security. The main security threat in the world today is what? Terrorism.

They blow up Europe; in Paris, in Russia, in Belgium. There is a war in the Middle East.

This is what we should be thinking about, but here we are debating the threat that Russia poses."

The dark suits:

they've sold their souls and

(as Dutch whistleblower Ronald Bernard says)

frozen their consciences at -100°

to become devoid of humanity and empathy.

Conclusion: We've Been Through this Before

History repeats itself, because we subconsciously and unconsciously create similar scenarios in the outer world based on our underlying inner psychological states.

Paul Craig Roberts recently wrote (Van Cliburn: America's Greatest Diplomat) about how other previous U.S. and Russian presidents had to contend and struggle with their respective bureaucracies and military men who thrived on suspicion, fear and war, rather than cooperation, trust and peace.

He writes:

"Khrushchev achieved the de-Stalinization of Russia and worked with U.S. President John F. Kennedy to defuse the Cuban Missile Crisis. Their cooperation opened an end to the Cold War.

However, hardliners in both countries removed both leaders from office, thus condemning the world to the ever present risk of nuclear Armageddon…

The Zionist neoconservatives and the military/security complex have succeeded in destroying the accomplishment of Reagan and Gorbachev, and have resurrected the prospect of nuclear Armageddon."

Presidents and prime ministers have a hard job in many ways.

The hardest aspect may well be resisting the urge of the dark suits around them to constantly feed the fear, create new enemies, inject life into old enemies and play the game of separation politics.

It seems in Putin there is a leader who is genuinely prepared and able to go beyond those childish games and strive for cooperation and peace.

Is Trump mature and strong enough for that task?

Being a bully shows weakness of character; building a relationship of mutual trust and cooperation requires strength.

[eurasiafactbook]

In recent years, Russia has combined military operations with disinformation campaigns that are designed to justify its aggressive actions. A key theme has been the idea of a fundamentally defensive Russia forced to protect its borders from “NATO expansion.” This entire narrative is based on long-debunked claims of a “pledge” made by the West to the Soviet Union not to expand NATO eastwards following the fall of the Berlin Wall. According to the Russian version of events, US Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not move east if the USSR allowed the reunification of East and West Germany. Archive documents prove that no such pledge was ever made. Even Gorbachev himself stated in October 2014 that the topic was not discussed at the time. This makes sense. In early 1990, nobody would have considered the possibility of any Warsaw Pact countries even theoretically aspiring to NATO membership. Instead, the only discussions on NATO enlargement referred specifically to East Germany. This somewhat primitive yet entirely characteristic deception has allowed Moscow to promote the myth of a duplicitous and expansionist NATO. Meanwhile, Russia is conveniently cast in the role of victim, forced to protect itself by occupying the lands of its neighbors. Unfortunately, many people around the world continue to be taken in by this hoax.

[sierracortney011]

The Latest Ukraine-Russia-US News: Live Updates

Image

Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, left, and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia held a news conference in Moscow on Tuesday.Credit…Pool photo by Yuri Kochetkov

MOSCOW — President Vladimir V. Putin said on Tuesday that the United States was trying to pull Russia into an armed conflict over Ukraine that Russia did not want, cautioning that the West had not yet satisfied Russia’s demands for a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe but that he hoped “dialogue will be continued.”

Mr. Putin, whose decision to mass 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border precipitated the current diplomatic crisis, accused the United States of trying to goad his government into launching a conflict, in order to create a pretext for tougher Western sanctions against Russia.

“Their most important task is to contain Russia’s development,” he said of the United States, repeating one of his frequent talking points. “Ukraine is just an instrument of achieving this goal. It can be done in different ways, such as pulling us into some armed conflict and then forcing their allies in Europe to enact those harsh sanctions against us that are being discussed today in the United States.”

His comments, at a news conference in Moscow with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, marked the first since December that Mr. Putin had spoken publicly about a crisis that threatens European security and stability, with a large-scale Russian troop buildup around Ukraine that American officials have warned could be a prelude to an invasion.

The Kremlin has demanded in writing that NATO not expand eastward, guaranteeing that Ukraine will never join the alliance, and that NATO draw down forces in Eastern European countries that were once part of the Soviet Union or part of its orbit. American and European officials have dismissed such demands as non-starters.

Mr. Putin described the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO as an existential threat not just to Russia, but to world peace. He said that a Western-allied Ukraine strengthened with NATO weapons could launch a war against Russia to recapture Crimea — which Russia annexed in 2014, a move unrecognized by the international community — leading to war between Russia and the NATO bloc.

“If we look at all these many questions deeply, seriously, then it becomes clear that in order to avoid such a negative development of the situation — and we want to avoid it — all countries’ interests, including those of Russia, must be truly taken into account, and a way of solving this problem must be found,” Mr. Putin said.

The United States and NATO delivered written responses to Russia’s demands last week. Russia has not yet responded formally, but Mr. Putin said it was clear “that the principal Russian concerns turned out to be ignored.”

Mr. Putin in December threatened that Russia would take unspecified “military-technical” measures if the West did not meet its demands.

He did not repeat those threats on Tuesday, instead sounding a somewhat optimistic note, describing the diplomacy that has been underway. He noted that President Emmanuel Macron of France could soon visit Moscow.

“I hope that eventually we will find this solution though it’s not easy, we understand that,” Mr. Putin said. “But to talk today about what that will be — I am, of course, not ready to do that.”

The Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, told reporters that Russian officials were still drafting a formal response to American security proposals aimed at de-escalating the Ukraine crisis, and that they would be ready as soon as Mr. Putin “sees fit.”

Mr. Putin and people close to him have said publicly that Ukraine, with its longstanding political and cultural ties to Russia, is not a legitimate country.

Russian officials have denied any plans to attack Ukraine even as Mr. Putin himself kept silent on the matter. Mr. Putin had last addressed the issue on Dec. 23, when he took a combative tone at his annual news conference in response to a British journalist who asked whether he would guarantee that Russia would not invade Ukraine.

“It was the United States that came with its missiles to our home, to the doorstep of our home,” Mr. Putin said. “And you demand from me some guarantees. You should give us guarantees. You! And right away, right now.”

Border with Russian units

Transnistria, a

Russian-backed

breakaway region

of Moldova.

Russia invaded and

annexed the Crimean

Peninsula from

Ukraine in 2014.

Approximate line

separating Ukrainian and

Russian-backed forces near

two breakaway provinces.

Border with

Russian units

Russia annexed

the Crimean

Peninsula from

Ukraine in 2014.

Transnistria, a

Russian-backed

breakaway region

of Moldova.

Approximate line

separating Ukrainian

and Russian-backed

forces.

Amid the mixed messaging, Russia has continued to mass troops around Ukraine, including in Belarus to the north. Russia says the troops gathering in Belarus will be taking part in snap military exercises from Feb. 10-20.

Mr. Putin’s meeting Tuesday with Mr. Orban was part of a flurry of diplomacy aimed at defusing the crisis. Before meeting the Hungarian leader, Mr. Putin spoke by telephone on Tuesday to Prime Minister Mario Draghi of Italy, who warned that a “worsening of the crisis” would produce “serious consequences,” the Italian prime minister’s office said.

Jason Horowitz contributed reporting from Rome.

— Anton Troianovski and Ivan Nechepurenko

Source link

The post The Latest Ukraine-Russia-US News: Live Updates appeared first on First News Blog.

from First News Blog https://firstnewsclick.com/the-latest-ukraine-russia-us-news-live-updates/2995/ from First Coast News https://firstnewsclick.tumblr.com/post/675015467997528064

[xtruss]

US Poorly Prepared For Post-Western Order

— Sun Xihui | July 06, 2023

Illustration: Xia Qing/Global Times

A recent article in Foreign Affairs pointed out, the world is entering a "post-Western era," and China and other countries have moved forward while the US remains stagnant. China is preparing for the arrival of the post-Western order, while the US is not.

The current world is mired in a difficult situation. Disorder and fragmentation are prominent features that observers tend to use to define it. In the past few decades, China has re-emerged as a major power, with the second largest economy and showing an ever-greater presence on world stage. Many have begun to discuss China's role in the world.

The current world order was set up and developed along Western lines of thinking. With the relative decline of Europe and the US in terms of strength and influence, the world order is bound to be different than before. Against the backdrop of the world gradually shifting toward a "post-Western order," the world needs a new and rational "order." China's long-standing commitment to peaceful development and diplomatic principles has earned it increasing international credibility, and many countries see China as a major driver in promoting a just and reasonable international political and economic order. However, it is evident that the West finds it hard to sit idly by, and the cultural traits of the West also determine that they cannot tolerate the "pain" of other countries' peaceful development.

The US significantly enhanced its military strength and comprehensive national strength through two world wars. Especially after the end of World War II, the traditional Western powers were either destroyed or weakened by the war, resulting in a brief period of an American "unipolar world." Faced with the rapid recovery and rise of the Soviet Union, the US, relying on its strong power and influence, attempted to rebuild the Western world, that is, by granting to aid Europe and other developing countries. It did so not out of genuine internationalism but to maintain its dominant position after WWII and respond to challenges from the Soviet Union.

It can be seen that since the end of WWII, especially after the end of the Cold War, the US has sought to maintain its absolute advantage in national strength and establish American hegemony over the entire world. Actively rallying allies and partners is an important means and method to achieve this. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US has continued to do so. It vigorously promotes Western values and political systems to distinguish between "us" and "them."

On the one hand, the US hypes the "China threat theory" while smearing or ignoring some of China's initiatives and proposals aimed at promoting peaceful development and win-win cooperation. This reflects the strategic anxiety of the US in the face of the trend - the rise of the East and the decline of the West. The first is anxiety about its hegemonic position, and the second is anxiety about the international order it leads. Since its establishment, the People's Republic of China has always advocated equality among nations, a world of harmony in diversity, and the democratization and rule of law in international relations.

China is well aware of the challenges that a chaotic world can bring to a country. Since modern times, China had been invaded by Western powers due to its weak national strength and even faced the danger of national extinction. In the face of crisis, the Chinese people had shown strong national unity and patriotism.

The differences in the international perspectives of China and the US are also reflected in the issue of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. NATO, led by the US, did not disband after the end of the Cold War but instead expanded eastward multiple times, continuously squeezing Russia's strategic space. The US' external actions reflect its strategic thinking, which prioritizes American hegemony and Western supremacy. The so-called rules-based international order emphasizes a set of rules formulated by the West, led by the US, to maintain its interests. By doing so, it aims to maintain or guarantee the long-term dominance of the West, especially the US, and to dominate and shape an international order that is favorable to it. China emphasizes the need to uphold the sovereignty and interests of both Ukraine and Russia in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, supports Ukraine's sovereignty claims, and also emphasizes the need to consider Russia's security interests and demands. China maintains a truly objective position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, supporting an international order based on the United Nations Charter and international law and opposing Western hegemony and power politics.

The article is compiled by Global Times reporter based on an interview with Sun Xihui, an associate research fellow with the National Institute of International Strategy at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

[leviathangourmet]

Two decades after political theorists in the United States and Europe celebrated a “post-national constellation” and “cosmopolitan democracy,” politics is increasingly shaped by explicitly nationalist appeals. The avatar of this new nationalism is Donald Trump, who urged the world in his United Nations speech last month “to reject the ideology of globalism and accept the ideology of patriotism.”

In Mr. Trump’s version of nationalism, Muslims and Mexican-Americans are stigmatized, and African-American football players who protest racial injustice by kneeling during the national anthem are denounced. Some of his applications of “America first” — repudiating the Paris climate agreement or abandoning the Iran nuclear deal — may not even prove to be in the national interest.

But these failings should not lead you to dismiss the value of nationalism, which, by itself, is neither good nor evil, liberal nor conservative. The perception of a common national identity is essential to democracies and to the modern welfare state, which depends on the willingness of citizens to pay taxes to aid fellow citizens whom they may never have set eyes upon.

Today’s nationalist revival is in reaction to the failure of global, not nation-based, initiatives that sailed over the heads of ordinary citizens. The reaction has been most potent on the political right, but there is certainly a basis for a liberal or social-democratic nationalism. If anything, the decline of liberal and social-democratic parties is a result at least in part of their inability to distinguish what is legitimate and justifiable in nationalism from what is small-minded, bigoted and contrary to the national interest it claims to uphold.

The bold supranational initiatives of globalization — a system of floating exchange rates in relation to the dollar; the unrestricted flow of capital; free trade (with few tariffs and government subsidies) monitored by the new World Trade Organization; the expansion of NATO and the European Union to ensure that former Communist states became liberal capitalist democracies — have unquestionably done some good. They helped expand trade and benefited immigrants who fled from less to more developed nations.

But in the United States and Western Europe, none of these initiatives really delivered as promised. The global economy has suffered a succession of financial crises culminating in the Great Recession and continuing to this day in Turkey and Argentina. The free movement of companies has led to a global race to the bottom for wages, taxes and regulation and to growing inequality within nations. Instead of producing convergence between the richer export-driven economies of Northern Europe and the less developed countries of Southern Europe, the euro has widened the gap between them.

They also failed to transform the global order in a way beneficial to Western democracies: NATO’s expansion eastward, betraying a pledge the George H.W. Bush administration made to Soviet leaders, contributed to rising conflict with the new Russian federation. And China’s entry into the W.T.O. didn’t lead to Beijing embracing free enterprise and liberal democracy. China used its command economy to run huge trade surpluses with the United States and Europe, helping to create a new class of angry “left-behinds” in factory towns in the American South and Midwest and in northeastern England.

The rush of immigrants in the United States has brought about a clash of culture just as it had in past centuries. Employers have also used low-skilled immigrants to undercut unions and to turn mid-wage jobs in construction, meatpacking and janitorial services into low-wage labor. After Sept. 11, 2001, the resentment toward immigrants became fused with a rising fear in the United States and especially in Europe of Islamist terrorism. That created a huge political backlash against immigrants and refugees.

Put that backlash together with the anger bred by lost manufacturing jobs and declining social services from reduced tax revenues, and you have the political base for Mr. Trump’s victory in 2016, Brexit and Italy’s League party.

In the United States, Mr. Trump’s nationalist policies have not been without merit. Where his predecessors have feared alienating China, he has boldly challenged its transfer of technology, cybertheft and hidden trade subsidies and barriers. He has also spoken up for American manufacturing industries and their workers, and chided footloose companies like Nabisco, Ford and Carrier.

But much of what Mr. Trump has done to make America great may eventually make it poorer. His corporate tax cut accelerates globalization’s race to the bottom. Much of the savings have already gone to corporate buybacks rather than new investment, and the resulting loss of tax revenues will threaten social spending for the people he claims to represent.

His Hobbesian take-no-prisoners approach to trade and foreign policy — sowing conflict with allies as well as rivals and foes — will threaten the underpinnings of global peace and prosperity, which still depends on a grudging acceptance of American economic and military power. There are already foreshadowings of future financial disorder — in discussions by the European Union, Russia and China to defy American sanctions against Iran by creating a new funding authority that would evade the dollar and by Russia and China’s decision to use their own currencies rather than the dollar as the medium of exchange. Mr. Trump’s immigration initiatives, too, have merely reinforced cultural resentments and done little to stem the oversupply of unskilled and easy-to-exploit unauthorized immigrants.

In all of these areas, Mr. Trump has harmed, not strengthened, our nation. Yet in the United States, the liberal opposition has generally failed to acknowledge what is valid in the today’s nationalist backlash. Many liberal pundits and political scientists continue to echo Hillary Clinton in characterizing Mr. Trump’s supporters in 2016 as deplorables. They denounce Mr. Trump’s tariffs without proposing any plausible means of counterbalancing the huge surpluses from China and Germany. They dismiss as a lost cause the attempt to revive the towns of the Midwest and South by reviving manufacturing. They rightly insist that the United States find a way to integrate and assimilate the country’s 12 million or more unauthorized immigrants, but they ignore the continuing flood of people without papers crossing the border or overstaying their visas and they dismiss attempts to change national priorities toward skilled immigrants.

Here is the simple truth: As long as corporations are free to roam the globe in search of lower wages and taxes, and as long as the United States opens its borders to millions of unskilled immigrants, liberals will not be able to create bountiful, equitable societies, where people are free from basic anxieties about obtaining health care, education and housing. In Europe, social democrats face very similar challenges with immigration, refugees and euro-imposed austerity. To achieve their historic objectives, liberals and social democrats will have to respond constructively to, rather than dismiss, the nationalist reaction to globalization.

[govargod]

New military bases in Latvia instead of hospitals

At the beginning of this month, the U.S. Department of Defense media Stars and stripes has officially announced the deployment of a new military base of American Special Forces in Latvia. To be precise, it is one of auxiliary airfield for the U.S. Special Forces, which main headquarter is located in the UK. The new base is expected to expand NATO’s operations in the Baltic States.

The U.S. contributed $3.7 million to the project through the European Deterrence Initiative, the Pentagon program that funds efforts aimed at preventing Russian aggression on NATO’s eastern flank.

“This project, along with other important European defense initiatives, represents our continued commitment to our friend and ally, Latvia,” Lt. Col. Juan Martinez, a spokesman for Special Operations Command-Europe, said in a statement.

In fact, this is not a defensive facility at all. Over the past five years, the Pentagon has prepared a foothold on Russia’s borders, due to spending millions of dollars on improving military infrastructure and conducting additional exercises in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

By the way, at the moment Russia is the main military threat to NATO until at least 2030. This was confirmed in the report on the reform of the Alliance, which was published following the consultations of the foreign ministers of the Alliance.

“In the long term until 2030, Russia will remain the main military threat to the alliance,” the document says.

The propose of authors of the report is to strengthen NATO’s capabilities to counter threats from Russia, expand cooperation with Ukraine and Georgia, which want to join NATO, and increase the number of military exercises on NATO’s “Eastern flank”.

NATO has carried out an alarming number of provocations in recent years. The political decision to expand the Alliance and to include not only the Warsaw Pact countries, but also Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, which were once part of the USSR, was clearly an unfriendly act. All these actions have intensified tensions.

In addition to NATO’s increasingly active eastward expansion, there has been a sharp increase in incidents in which NATO aircraft – especially American surveillance aircraft – approached the Russian border to check the country’s air and naval defenses. Moscow has reacted angrily to this behavior, not only by intercepting these planes, but also engaging in unsafe interactions with them. In recent years, there have been hundreds of interceptions of U.S. and NATO warplanes every year, mainly in the Black and Baltic Sea regions.

Moreover, the number and scale of NATO military exercises in Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia have increased dramatically in recent years. So, in January 2020, the alliance conducted its largest exercise in 25 years. In early June, Russia offered to reduce its military maneuvers during the coronavirus pandemic if Western allies did the same, however, the NATO leadership simply ignored the proposal. In addition, an even larger DEFENDER OF EUROPE 21 military exercise is planned for 2021.

By declaring defensive missions and showing concern over the possibility of “Russian aggression”, the Baltic States are increasingly drawn into the aggressive plans of the U.S. and NATO. Thus, the leadership of these countries poses a real threat to their own populations. Indeed, in case of attack on Russia from the Baltic direction, exactly these territories will become one of the main aims for the Russian weapons.

[worldpolitics2017-blog]

NATO's Cautious Role in the Ukraine Dilemma

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the relationship between NATO and Eastern Europe has been a contentious one. The 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia didn’t help persuade violence-weary, newly-liberated Eastern Bloc nations to join the military pact. Eventually, some countries (Bulgaria and Romania), fearing the antagonistic actions of Russia, entered the alliance. Others (Belarus), preferred to maintain a cordial connection with the Kremlin and distrust Western interference. Recent hostile operations conducted by Russia in Ukraine and NATO’s reaction further muddy the water, causing the organization’s identity to be more scrutinized than ever.

In 2014, Russia initiated several incursions into Ukrainian territory. In response to the illegal annexation of Crimea, NATO drafted The Readiness Action Plan, which consists of two parts: Assurance and Adaptive measures (none of which are offensive by nature). The Assurance measures aimed to reassure members of the alliance that border Russia by strengthening air surveillance and heightening military drills in the Baltics and along NATO’s eastern side. The Adaptive measures aimed to reinforce the capability of the alliance to react to any conflict that may occur. It formed a new ‘spearhead’ unit of around 5,000 soldiers and provided advanced military technology to member states situated across the eastern flank.

Although no combative policies were implemented against Russia, Vladimir Putin accused NATO of escalating the situation and warned that increased activities near his country’s borders would be met with fierce backlash. Putin’s threat is rather ironic seeing as he was the one who violated Ukrainian sovereignty by sending troops over and arming separatist rebel groups. But does he have a case? Russia says it’s in Ukraine to protect the human rights of its citizens. Killings of innocent civilians and attacks against pro-Ukrainian activists committed by Russian soldiers disprove this claim.

NATO has dealt with the strife in a protective but firm manner, launching funds for the Ukrainian army and sending care packages, while punishing Russia through support of EU-imposed economic sanctions. No direct military operations were carried out, so Russia doesn’t have a leg to stand on when berating NATO for acting overly belligerent, considering its own hostilities. In fact, NATO has been criticized by some leaders for being too passive. Malcolm Rifkind, veteran British ex-foreign minister, described the disregard for military exploits as “very disturbing”, since the Ukrainian crisis is such a grave issue.

Given Rifkind’s passionate response, one would expect Britain to be increasingly involved in NATO today. Instead, the UK’s exit from the EU has led some foreign policy experts to predict that Brexit will negatively affect its commitment to NATO. Britain encourages continued sanctions on Russia and was among the first nations to criticize Russia’s intrusion in Ukraine. However, the International Institute for Strategic Studies announced, in early 2017, that Britain was no longer meeting the alliance’s spending target. If the UK fails to hit the 2% target, NATO will weaken and find it difficult to maintain defenses, let alone launch an offensive strategy. Britain praised NATO for standing up against Soviet aggression in the Cold War, but now seems to treat the organization as a financial burden.

The main reason Britain is hesitant to increase NATO spending is the current political divide between MPs who agree with the principle of collective defense and MPs who shun military engagement. When asked about a hypothetical Russian attack on a NATO member, Jeremy Corbyn stated he “doesn’t wish to go to war". Although, his supporters regard NATO as defensive, they believe the organization is poking the bear by aiding Ukraine. Conversely, his rival candidate, Owen Smith, expressed “[Britain] shouldn’t be anything other than robust in facing up to Putin", implying that NATO must be more assertive. It’s apparent that Britain’s view of NATO as an aggressive or defensive pact is more conflicted than Russia’s.

Even with Britain’s total backing, NATO would prefer to avoid aggressive use of force, as its last major led intervention was 18 years ago in Kosovo. The controversial wars in Afghanistan and Iraq dissuaded NATO from exerting brute might when handling volatile engagements, especially those that involve Russia. In 2008, Moscow invaded Georgia, and NATO stood aside because Georgia was never formally adopted as a member, a grim sign for Ukrainians hoping to receive direct NATO assistance.

The one development that could be defined as being antagonistic from Russia’s perspective is NATO’s enlargement. In 1990, US leaders promised that in exchange for Germany’s inclusion in NATO, the organization would not expand “one inch eastward.” The Soviets agreed, but realized that America wasn’t willing to keep its end of the bargain when, a few years later, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic States joined NATO. What Russia’s government fails to mention are the reasons why its former allies chose to unify with the ‘enemy’. No coercion or aggressive pressure was employed. Instead, decades of oppression under Soviet rule during the Cold War left a bitter taste in the mouths of many Eastern Europeans. Even though they were apprehensive about NATO’s motives, the built-up resentment made it impossible for them to side with Russia. Thus, it’s difficult to blame NATO for expanding, since countries afraid of Russia’s clout are naturally drawn to the security it offers.

Ukraine is a good example of a nation that opposed NATO membership until struck with Russian aggression. The 2006 anti-NATO protests in Feodosia demonstrated that numerous Ukrainians believed NATO posed a significant threat. Russia’s invasion quickly changed their views, as polls from the middle of 2014 till 2016 revealed that the majority of Ukrainians support NATO consolidation. According to Petro Poroshenko, the president of Ukraine, the primary goal is to obtain help from NATO in shoring up the country’s defense system. Again, the focus is solely on protection, not retaliation. The shift in public sentiment reflects a glaring reality: when forced to choose between domination by Russia and reluctant association with NATO, the latter option is more appealing for many Eastern European nations. 

One area that is hotly contested by Russia is Crimea, an autonomous republic and gateway to the Black Sea. An ethnic Russian majority resides in Crimea, but it’s still unclear whether citizens there want independence or want secession. Results from a 2014 referendum on the status of Crimea indicate that 96.77% of people favor integration of the region into the Russian Federation. NATO deemed the referendum illegitimate and unrepresentative of true public opinion. Video recordings of thugs, backed by Russian troops, intimidating voters and reports that Russia transported large numbers of native Russians to swing the ballot, support NATO’s assertion. The Constitution of Ukraine, Article 2, also affirms that the territory of Ukraine is “indivisible and inviolable”, so a referendum held only in Crimea cannot legally alter the entire country’s borders. 

Overall, NATO cannot allow Russia to take over Crimea without doing anything, as it creates a dangerous precedent for future territory takeovers. Hence, the increased military presence near Russia’s borders, which may appear hostile, isn't to provoke Putin, but rather to show that the weak will not be pushed around by the strong. Regardless of Russia’s historical claim on Ukraine, it ignited the conflict, and every step that NATO has taken so far is to prevent the war from spreading, revealing its inherent defensive essence.

- Jeff Zhou and Aldo Gonzalez 

[libertariantaoist]

Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump kept repeating a line  that stuck in the Establishment’s craw like a cherry pit stuck under a denture:  “Wouldn’t it be nice if  we could get along with Russia?” Russia and specifically Russian President  Vladimir Putin are consistently portrayed in the US media as implacable enemies  of the US and the West: it’s simply taken as the given. And yet, the biggest  revelation in Oliver Stone’s recent four-part series of extensive interviews  with Putin is how consistently and desperately Putin has tried to get along  with us. In the second interview, Stone points out that, after the 9/11 attacks,  Putin was “one of the first to call [George W. Bush] and offer condolences,  and Putin elaborates that more than a phone call was involved:

“Yes, we had planned military exercises of our new strategic forces for  the next day. And I canceled those exercises and I wanted the president of the  United States to know that. Certainly I understood that heads of state and governments  in such a situation need moral support.. And we wanted to demonstrate this to  President Bush.”

Contrast this with the behavior of the US government when Russian cities came  under attack from Chechen Islamic terrorists in the 2010 bombing of the Moscow  Metro system. While there was a pro forma denunciation of the attack, the American  propaganda network, “Radio Free Europe,” ran a piece entitled “In  Wake of Metro Bombings, Putin’s War On Terror Is Under Fire.”  The gist  of the article is that Putin, not the terrorists, was responsible for the attacks.  There is even a quote from Boris Nemtsov, the leader of a tiny opposition movement  whose death two years ago was naturally blamed on Putin, implying that the whole  thing was a “false flag” operation carried out by the authorities:

“’This happened right under the security  services’ noses,’ Nemtsov said, noting that the attack at the Lubyanka metro  station took place in close proximity to the headquarters of the Federal Security  Service….    ”Nemtsov adds that many disturbing questions  remain about the attacks.    "’Nobody can explain how two female suicide  bombers got to the center of Moscow. Nobody can answer how they got the explosives.  Nobody can answer what the police and security services were doing to prevent  this.’”

Radio Free Europe also referred to the 1999  apartment bombings that took place in Moscow and other major cities as “mysterious,”  bolstering the “truther”  views of fringe Russian oppositionists – including exiled oligarch Boris  Berezovsky – that the Russian intelligence services were behind the attacks.  According to the Russian “truthers,” it was all a plot to hand total power to  Putin.

Yet here is Putin telling Stone that allowing the US military access to Russian  bases in Tajikistan in order to fight the Taliban was right and necessary because  “We believe that this cooperation is in our national interest.” This says something  important about Putin, and his conception of how Russia’s foreign policy should  be run: he never allows emotions to get in the way of pursuing what he regards  as his country’s interests, objectively defined. And there are plenty of emotional  reasons for him to obstruct the US at every turn, for as the interview continues  Stone brings up Washington’s “regime-change” operations aimed at the Kremlin,  specifically CIA chief Bill Casey’s plan to utilize Islamic radicals against  the Russians after the fall of Afghanistan. Putin’s reply is revealing:

“You see, the thing is, these ideas are still alive. And when those problems  in the Caucasus and Chechnya emerged, unfortunately the Americans support these  processes…. Even though we counted on American support. We assumed that the  Cold War was over … but instead we witnessed the American intelligence services  support terrorists.  And even when we confirmed that, when we demonstrated that  Al Qaeda fighters were fighting in the Caucasus, we still saw the intelligence  services of the United States continue to support these fighters.”

Longtime readers of Antiwar.com, and of this column, may recall this  piece exposing the US-based support network enjoyed by the Caucasus “rebels”  via the “American Committee for Peace in Chechnya,” and the myriad connections  of Metro bomber Rezvan Chitigov, a US resident with a green card, to  Al Qaeda’s terrorist activities in the region.

US government support to the Chechen terrorists wasn’t just propagandistic:  as Putin points out, they provided technical and logistical support, moving  them around the battlefield. When Putin met with George W. Bush, he brought  this up, and the then President said “I’ll sort this out.”

He never did. Instead, the CIA actually sent a letter to their Russian counterparts  in response to Putin’s concerns, which said, in summary: “We support all the  political forces, including the opposition forces, and we’re going to continue  to do that.” So in public, the Bush administration was bloviating about the  centrality of the “war on terrorism,” while they were covertly canoodling with  Al Qaeda and allied forces in the Caucasus in a relentless campaign against  Russia.

And the same thing is happening in Syria today, with US support to Islamist  “rebels” intent on overthrowing the regime of Bashar al-Assad. “It’s a systemic  mistake,” says Putin, “which is repeated always. This is the same thing which  happened in Afghanistan in the 1980s. And right now it’s happening in the Middle  East.”

Stone presses the Russian leader for evidence of Western support to Chechen  terrorists, and Putin’s reply is that it was no secret, which it certainly was  not. The British government granted asylum  to Akhmed Zakayev, former “Prime Minister” of the breakaway Islamist “Chechen  Republic of Icheria” – whose forces carried out the bloody Beslan attacks on  Russian schoolchildren. The National Endowment for Democracy, the European Union,  and the Norwegian government funded  the “Russia-Chechen Friendship Society,” which published Chechen separatist  propaganda. When the Kremlin moved to shut this operation down, the Western  media pointed to it as evidence of Putin’s “authoritarianism,” and yet imagine  if the Russians started funding, say, a Texas secessionist movement in the US.  American lawmakers and officials can’t even meet with the Russian ambassador  without being accused of “treason”! Our National Endowment for Democracy has  honored the former “Foreign Minister” of the Chechen Isalmic “republic,” Ilyas  Akhmadov, with a fellowship, and he regularly  participates in NED events. Wanted  on terrorism charges in Russia, he was granted asylum  by the Bush administration.

Putin’s complaints about US policy are centered on three issues:

  Washington’s “regime change” campaign against the Kremlin.

 The US decision to unilaterally abrogate the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

 The eastward expansion of NATO.

These are all interconnected, but it’s worth noting where and when they originated:  during the presidency of George W. Bush – when the neoconservatives were in  the drivers’ seat. And these policies continued throughout the Obama years,  with the Democrats now signing on to the Hate-on-Russia campaign and escalating  it beyond anything yet seen. As Putin put it to Stone, “And there’s one curious  thing – the presidents of your country change, but the policy doesn’t change  – I mean on principled issues.” That’s because the national security bureaucracy  – what conservatives these days are referring to as the “Deep State” (without crediting  Noam Chomsky!) – and not our elected officials are the ones really in charge.

While there’s some controversy surrounding the alleged promise made to the  Russians that NATO would not expand if the Kremlin agreed to allow German reunification,  the fact that the agreement was verbal and not enshrined on paper doesn’t obviate  its significance. And there is plenty of evidence  to show that there was indeed such an agreement. As Joshua Shifrinson pointed  out in the Los Angeles Times:

“In early February 1990, U.S. leaders made the Soviets an offer. According  to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State  James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation on Germany, US could  make “iron-clad guarantees” that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward.’  Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to reunification  talks.”

Yet NATO pushed eastward without interruption during the Bush years, and this  process continued under his successors, until today, with Trump in the White  House, tiny Montenegro is now  hailed as the latest entrant into the club – a country whose borders are  ill-defined, and whose combative internal politics are a constant struggle between  pro-Russian and pro-Western forces. Against whom, Putin asks, is NATO protecting  its members from? Who is the “enemy”? Clearly the answer is Russia, as the alliance  expands to the very gates of Moscow and Western forces engage in provocative  “exercises,” simulating a NATO invasion of Russian territory.

The ABM Treaty, once the cornerstone of détente, was nullified  by the United States – but why? The official explanation – at least, the one  given to Putin – was that the US had to build antimissile defenses against the  alleged “threat” from Iran. Aside from the credibility of the contention that  the Iranians were getting ready to strike Warsaw or Prague, the Iran deal, says  Putin, makes this rationalization obsolete. Yet still the antimissile shield  is being expanded, and the Russians are obliged to take countermeasures, lest  the US gain a first strike capability.

As I pointed out in the first installment of  this review, it’s fascinating to see the contrast between Stone, a committed  man of the left, and Putin, who’s closer to being a paleoconservative than anything  else. In reviewing the history of Russo-American relations since 1917, Stone  avers that “The United States and the allies did nothing to help the Soviet  Union when the Soviet Union was warning the world about the fascist threat in  Spain and throughout Europe.” He goes on to echo Stalin’s complaint that the  Western allies weren’t doing enough to help the Soviets, who were taking the  brunt of Germany’s assault. Left out of his historical account is the fact that  the Soviets were allied  with Hitler’s Germany, that the Soviets and the Germans jointly invaded and  divided up Poland, and that this was the genesis of the Second World War. Just  a minor oversight!

Juxtapose Stone’s uncritical view of Soviet foreign policy with Putin’s perspective:  the Russian leader considers the Warsaw Pact a mistake. Citing the Soviet withdrawal  from  Austria, a move which he see as creating an “asset,” and the agreement  over the neutral status of Finland, Putin contends that Russia – if it had followed  this course – would’ve been able to deal with the West “on a civilized basis.  We would have been able to cooperate with them. We wouldn’t have had to spend  enormous resources to support their inefficient economies.” Yes, Putin realizes  what American policymakers don’t see: that empires are a burden, not an asset.

The creation of the Warsaw Pact gave the West  an “excuse,” as Putin puts it, “to create NATO and launch a Cold War.” And he  makes a very salient point about how and why US foreign policy went off on a  dangerous tangent in the post-Soviet era:

“I think that when the United States felt they were at the forefront of  the so-called civilized world and when the Soviet Union collapsed, , they were  under the illusion that the United States was capable of everything and they  could act with impunity. And that’s always a trap, because in this situation,  a person and a country begins to commit mistakes. There is no need to analyze  the situation. No need to think about the consequences. No need to economize.  And the country becomes inefficient and one mistake follows another. And I think  that’s the trap the United States has found itself in.”

He takes his argument further, positing that  the whole society becomes infected with this unrealistic hubris, and it becomes  politically necessary for the leadership to follow this irrational course to  the very end.

Stone is excited by this kind of talk: he goes  into a riff about how what he’d like to talk about in their next interview “is  this pursuit of world domination” by the US. At which point, Putin draws back:

“Well, let’s agree on something. I know how critical you are of the United  States’ policies. Please do not try to drag me into anti-Americanism.”

I had to laugh when I heard that. It underscores  Putin’s view of the US, and the whole spirit of these interviews: while Putin  believes that the present foreign policy of US leaders is misguided, he holds  out hope that this is not a permanent condition. While Stone has this one-dimensional  view of the US as the Global Villain – as if this is an inherent quality  of American society, perhaps due to the nature of American capitalism – Putin  sees the consequences of what calls “the logic of imperialism” as an aberration.  

It’s a view with which I very much concur: American  imperialism is an aberration, a radical deviation from the course set  for us by the Founders of this country, and completely out of character for  the overwhelming majority of the American people, who just want to live in peace.  

In the first installment of this series, I said that there is plenty of real  news buried in these interviews, and certainly Putin’s revelation that the Russians  rejected Edward Snowden’s first contacts with the Russians, which occurred when  he was in China, qualifies. Apparently a request for asylum was made, either  by Snowden or his representatives, “but I said we wanted nothing to do with  that,” says Putin. The Russians didn’t want to aggravate their already difficult  relations with the US government. And this rejection was probably due in part  to the fact that “Snowden didn’t want to give us any information, and he has  to be credited with that,” Putin continues. “But when it turned out we were  not willing to do that yet, not ready, he just disappeared.”

So how did Snowden wind up in Russia? As my  readers may recall, he arrived at a Russian airport en route probably to Cuba  or Ecuador. However, the US mobilized its European sock-puppets and blocked  the route, and so he stayed in the Russian airport for weeks. He was eventually  granted temporary asylum because the United States had been consistently refusing  to sign an extradition treaty with Russia, despite the initiative undertaken  by Moscow at the time. “And according to our law,” says Putin, “Snowden didn’t  violate any law – he didn’t commit any crime.” And so with the US pointedly  refusing to extradite Russians accused of crimes – such as terrorism – to Russia,  “it was absolutely impossible for us to unilaterally extradite Snowden as the  US was asking us to do.”

Talk about blowback!

There’s more news: Stone asks about the extent  of Russian spying on the US, and Putin’s response is quite revealing, albeit  not in the way Stone or anyone else expected:

“Yes, sure, I don’t have anything against their spying on us. But let me  tell you something quite interesting. After radical changes – political changes  – took place in Russia, we thought that we were surrounded by allies and no  one else. And we also thought the United States was our ally. And this former  president of the KGB, of the special services of Russia, all of a sudden he  transferred to our American partners, our American friends, the old system of  eavesdropping devices on the US Embassy in Moscow. And he did it unilaterally.  Just all of a sudden, on a whim – as a token of trust symbolizing the transition  to a new level.”

There was, however, no reciprocal move from  the Americans: “We never witnessed any step from the United States toward us.”

Of course not.