I think Niccolo and others, very repulsed by USA dominance and wokeism, want desperately for an alternative big power to emerge, to counter the liberal nonsense we are seeing.
But, Russia isnt the winning horse they want us to believe it is.
It isnt (and probably, has never been) an economic powerhouse, something that is a requirement to play in the big leagues as an empire and project influence and impose values.
Something that the Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Arabs and British did when they held big empires.
AS for today, the only one that can play the role of antagonist to the US and insufferable wokeism is... CHINA:
Very interesting points. Putin has definitely been too hard-lined with not recognizing Ukrainians as a separate identity from Russians. And never did I see him give any concessions to recognize the oppressions that did exist toward Ukrainian language, culture and life throughout history from both Tsarist and Soviet Russia, the historical memory of which is important to Ukrainians and part of cultural identity. He ignores the history of people like Taras Schevchenko, and the kobzars, even Gogol having to rewrite novels to suit the Tsarist narrative. Worse to him is to go so far as to acknowledge Holodomor, tho he acknowledged Solzenitsyn's works on the tragedies in Stalin era! And it should be obvious to him that Ukrainian is even more linguistically near to Polish than to Russian.
It is as if the Duma thinks these things are just as banal as Western identity politics and pronouns, yet capable of creating a huge cultural disruption or undermining Russia's national interest.
And no problem he had recognizing the Chechens as distinct. That was easy. They are muslim.
Of course Ukrainians as going to feel Nationalistic and opposed to Russia when their leader continuously waves away it all and says "we are the same people" It is just like hearing someone else tell you how much you are alike while ignoring all you say. Definitely did not win over many Ukrainian hearts, among those who weren't already identifying more as Russian.
It's bizarre because he would have the same claims to dispute Ukraine-NATO involvement, Crimea, and Donbass still if regarding Ukrainians as distinct.
There's some good stuff in there, but his predictions of Russian public's fortitude to enconomic sanctions is delusional, imo. The response by the West has also galvanized ordinary Russians. Whilst the war analysis seems sound and plausible (that's all anyone can say), this is a far better take on the Putler and Russian people:
Mar 12, 2022·edited Mar 12, 2022Liked by Niccolo Soldo
I'd also like to hear about this!
Alexander Mercouris suggested a few months back there was some old money involved and some familiar players from WWII regrouping. I don't know the specifics of what he meant. And another author pointed out in Homo Deus, the Nazi ideal of creating a superhuman finding its way into transhumanism. I've seen Klaus Schwab talking about the Internet of All Things as well. On my mind from time to time.
Will support Russia's survival after its teeth are cut and its troops out of Ukraine.
No other sane position for a East European. I think this invasion would've happened regardless of NATO expansion. Empires simply do this all the damn time, and smaller countries, if we are to survive, must play them cynically against each other.
NATO will do for now.
Not our fault Russian bros, you could've pushed your OrthoBro religious stuff and sustain traditions in the area, instead you've went in with the tanks and sent like 500K refugees (that should be helped!) in my country and destabilized MY cozy area.
There will be a HUUUUUGE price to pay for going against the End of History.
These days most of the commentary I read on this conflict are mostly from my own Eastern European home country as well.
You know you can trust our media analyses because on the one hand, there is always a 50/50 split of pro-russian and anti-russian sentiment (unless maybe Poland where it's more tilted) and what's more we have always been cynical and clear headed enough to see the ambitions and plots of both of the global super powers without really being invested ideologically in either side (we get fucked either way). So there are some really sober journalistic contributions on the question right now.
Ukraine is the perfect illustration of your point, since it has given up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a paper assuring the inviolability of its borders
Ukraine could not maintain the nuclear missiles on their land for various reasons, one of which being the launch codes located in Moscow. The American fear was that they would find themselves on the black market.
There have been many, many studies done in the West (especially the USA) as to why Ukraine couldn't operate the nuclear arsenal on its soil. Google is your friend.
Mar 13, 2022·edited Mar 13, 2022Liked by Niccolo Soldo
As this is more or less part of my job, I am well aware that even on scientific and technical subjects, it is quite easy to defend one view or the opposite. And I trust that if disarmament was the path that the US wanted to lead Ukraine in, reports have been published to that effect.
Nevertheless, I would find it very difficult to take them seriously, since a country like France, starting in 1945 from purely theoretical knowledge, has managed to acquire a nuclear arsenal and the means to maintain it in barely 20 years. Ukraine had all the relevant theoretical and technological knowledge in the 1990s. A possible lack of expertise on any technical point would have been easily remedied.
While googling, I learned that in 1993 John Mearsheimer himself argued in Foreign Affairs that a nuclear arsenal was “imperative” if Ukraine was “to maintain peace” and that it would ensure that the Russians, “who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it.” I don't think he would have seriously considered this option if there was an obvious impossibility.
History has once again proven him right and I know his views on Ukraine are close to yours nowadays...
Mar 12, 2022·edited Mar 12, 2022Liked by Niccolo Soldo
"Instead, the USA went ahead and armed Ukraine ...": by inciting it in 1994 to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a promise from Russia, the United States and UK to uphold the inviolability of its national borders or by not delivering sufficient anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons until war broke out?
"... and put it on the path towards NATO membership": since the initial application of Ukraine to join NATO in 2008, it was obviously a very very long path.
Which was basically outright rejected back then ("we will consider this application later"), along with Georgia's application. We all know what happened to Georgia right after that
Are you suggesting that the mere fact that Ukraine was buying military equipment from countries other than Russia (which was already equipping a rebel militia in the east of the country) was in itself a provocation?
The fact that several countries are now scrambling to deliver equipment for Ukraine's defence proves that Ukraine had not been properly armed in the first place. And yet Ukraine had requested to purchase some essential defence equipment, such as the Patriot missile defense system, but was turned down.
When you have US advisors on the ground arming the locals with weapons, it definitely is a provocation in light of the Kiev regime's moves towards NATO membership, which the USA backed.
If this was done outside of the context of NATO (neutrality) and without Americans, it would be a different story.
The purchase of high-tech weapons always involves the presence of foreign advisors for training. The same applies to the training of an army in modern combat techniques. The only alternative for Ukraine was to buy military equipment from Russia. A bit like Croatia buying equipment and seeking guidance from Serbia in the early 1990s.
In any case, why the Americans would have waited 14 years to consider Ukraine's application to join NATO remains to be explained.
This was not training in how to use advanced weapon systems that Ukraine had bought from the US like a fleet of modern fighter jets or an integrated air defense system or something like that.
This was the US advising and building up the operational capability of the Ukrainean armed forces as a whole which was rapidly expanding in size with the help of aid from the US and the US' European vassal states.
First the Ukraineans should not have behaved like fanatics (I am starting to suspect it's no coincidence that the SS choose Ukraineans specifically for their Einsatsgruppen) and should not have overthrown their diplomatically very wisely acting elected president in a US-backed coup.
In my opinion the fanatical elements among the Ukraineans (Which seems very common in the state security apparatus and the armed forces) are now getting exactly what they did order, even though of course the US (Whose ruling tribe has a deep hatred of Russia for ethnohistorical reasons) have also pushed Ukraine towards ordering what is now being delivered.
Ukraineans seem to have no understanding of geopolitics and are obviously clueless about diplomacy, there is only a fanatical nationalism that turns against any other european group the second that group no longer support whatever the Ukraineans want, looking at the history of Ukraine.
Of course I deplore the deaths of ordinary Ukrainean civilians - who the Russians actually are taking a lot of steps to not trying to kill given their doctrine and equipment - but as regards the fanatical regime in Kiev that is willing to use it's own citizens as human shields (I have seen many videos of Ukrainean howitzers set up and firing from residential areas) and also is willing to use a kind of reverse moral nuclear blackmailing technique towards the European public, the rest of Europe is better of with it destroyed.
150 US Army Florida National Guardsmen and associated other trainers were pulled out of Western Ukraine just prior to invasion, just as we were evacuating our embassy. We have been training them openly for years.
No, I think it's an open provocation, rather like you , yourself.
Which was the answer to the question.
Here's a summary of US/Ukr relations: we are far better at using you than you are at using us.
The Ukrainians had 30 years to get ready for this war.
They didn't.
They have been at war for 8 years, nope.
More provocations: per the OSCE the Ukrainian side dramatically increased it's shelling of separatist regions just prior to the war beginning, as well as move it's 60,000 best troops to the area, to face about 14,000 RU backed separatist militia.
You got played, DC played you, you Ukrainians are NOT INNOCENT, but a country run by Kleptocrats, gangsters, acting as our money laundering operation as well as getting involved in our USA politics.
You got in bed with the Democratic party to get rid of Trump, now predictably the Democratic party incited you to war with Russia, abandoned you to your fate and it's upon you. Your government incited war with Russia after being TOLD the USA wasn't coming, so either Zelensky is delusional or corrupt - probably both.
Ukrainians are as innocent as Afghans - you aren't.
Vice-versa. I already left a comment down below. You can keep pretending that it's always NATO, and that NATO tends to plot against NATO, and that NATO is responsible for everything. But, unfortunately, keeping your head in the sand on that there's actors other than NATO out there too only makes you blind to any proceedings when it is, in fact, not NATO.
You also forgot to ask yourself, who benefits. Because NATO is certainly not benefiting. So it can't be NATO.
P.S. In case you haven't noticed, the idea of joining NATO was the FIRST point Ze has publicly "conceded" during negotiations.
I repeat my question above: do you feel that the Ukrainian army should be trained only by Russians, who are already training the irredentist militias of Dombass, or that it should not be trained at all?
The Florida National Guard is, to say the least, probably not the best the US Army can offer when it comes to training. This would rather confirm that there was no clear will to provide the finest training and equipment to the Ukrainian army.
The NG are actually quite competent, usually have active duty time and go to the same training and schools as the regular forces.
They don't get as much time training as units in mass formations, at least in theory. In practice the difference is not too stark. Combat and other performance support the practical results, in some cases the combat or gunnery performance is superior as the Guard units are together for many years allowing better cohesion.
In measured performance the NG has often enough performed superior to Active duty units again due to cohesion and lack of disruption from constant rotations.
As trainers the NG are often preferred, they usually have real world civilian jobs and lives which allow the NG to relate better to others outside the military. They also often have civilian job experience that is valuable technically and practically in training and administration. Often enough they are police IRL which in America means they are excellent at being diplomatic and tactful, patient.
So while we have not sent 'the best' in terms of whatever movie is playing in the head, we did send the best at training.
However you insolent whiner, who TF entitled you to 'be sent our best?' You think you're ordering room service here?
If you don't like the NG or anything about the USA or US MIL, just leave a negative rating on Yelp, Biatch.
I'm sensing Polish here BTW, they are very, very entitled. Very.
Not even the Saudi's who DID buy our government act so entitled.
Honestly, what can East Europe on its own do to Russia, especially when you’re dependent on their natural resources? Why act so confident about the end results when you haven’t even consulted with the ones with the military: the Americans?
Clash of power blocs/civilizations is the same thing. Any post-Putin regime will be even more antagonistic towards the West. They know that they are in existential defence mode.
What Americans do you mean? We don’t have myopic vision- we know our government well.
Too well.
We the Americans are TARGETS of our own government.
As for the rest of you, you are simply seeing now what we have learned to our cost for years- our government are lawless criminals.
As for defending you; Go to Hell.
Get your own nukes, and risk nuclear ☢️ extermination on your own behalf.
No nukes, no nation.
BTW the Russian sanctions will enrich US energy producers, our own Oligarchs. We’re going to take every pfennig and Euro for the next 100 years - if you let it happen.
We being “America” as you put it.
Seriously- shove off. Which is what’s happening you know. This is the end of NATO, and while 30 years too late not a moment too soon.
You’re not defending us, your govt are lawless criminals and our govts (in Europe) are in league with them. And your population and ours are being robbed by the combined group. Yes your gang will steal all our money as a result of this, but our elites are on board with this as they’ll get a slice.
PS - actually we are defending you, unless you’re a nuclear power. With our nukes, which means our nation subject to nuclear retaliation (the only one that counts).
In truth whats also happening is the Euros have had that all rent free- and the Bill just came due. We spend double our GDP than Europeans NATO goals of 2% , but usually we’re paying 3-4X the amount of GDP Europeans pay.
If the rent is too high get your own place, or a new landlord (Xi or Putin available).
And yes perhaps it’s time for NATO to end?
And correct we’re not defending anymore- we’re collecting back dues.
I thought we agreed that your govt are crooks. They aren't defending you or us. All that money on "defense" - it's just a way of funnelling your money to military corporations. Sure us Europeans haven't yet, been rinsed quite so thoroughly as the US public, but that's gonna change. We'll soon be buying your expensive gas, even though the Russian stuff is easier to get and probably half the price. I think this is one of the main motivations here - use NATO to provoke Russia to keep Western Europe in a subservient state. We are collaborating in our own impoverishment - at least our elites will get some crumbs.
Mar 12, 2022·edited Mar 12, 2022Liked by Niccolo Soldo
"pure competitor" This should be "peer competitor", looks like Isaac Chotiner never read a single page of Mearsheimer and doesn't actually understand Mearsheimer's US-China theory so he's unable to transcribe correctly
PS they corrected it - your link is to the archive of the original
As a European I could only dream of a rearmed Europe. The thing that Russia and the US don't seem to realise or just haven't been drilled enough is that there is a very nasty historical cycle in which German go broke -> German starve -> German make big army -> German wreak royal havoc. Ask Russia and the US how it went for them the last time they had to fight off an armed Europe. Yes, at the end they were victorious but the cost was immense, always was - when Germans go to war it's quite ugly. And BTW I have a secret theory that the Germans have been waiting for a conflict like this for the better part of 80 years now. It took them less than 20 years to go from absolutely destroyed, bled out country to military hegemon during the 2nd World War. How much time is it going to take them now, as a G8 economy. We talk about not waking up the bear a lot, but no one talks how we've been internationally humiliating the eagle for so long, what if it decides to fly?
I'm a boomer and hated that music. Not to mention the clothes and hair. I'm watching the Dave Brubek Quartet on Youtube these days. Check out "Golden Brown." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXEh9e7VL7k
Too bad the Beatles blew guys like that out of the water. But, instead of corporate cool the womyns went literally berserk for feminized boys. The massive cultural shift that occurred in less than a decade is mind-boggling. Before the Beatles, rock music was considered something for teenagers. As an intelligent man you were supposed to grow up and into jazz and/or classical music. There was supposed to be some room for decorum, reflection and moderation. You dressed up a bit when you went to a concert.
Someone needs to write a book on what the hell happened to Anglo-American men, or western men in general.
Some of the best classical music composers were either very effeminate, gay or weren't very in line with the serious masculine trope ( I mean they were musicians making heartfelt music, otherwise they would have made a name in other more masculine domaines.)
Jazz musicians were some of the most serious fighters in the earliest civil rights movements, not very pro-establishment.
Rockers weren't really that feminine (not even the Beatles) especially all the later spawn of the genre like hard rock and metal, which were targeted to a very masculine low class crowd (most rockers even these days are quite anti-LGBT)Rock music was one of the greatest cultural exports of the US and was the reason I liked it when I was a kid (still love the music)
I'm not arguing against Dionysian excess, per se. Whether you like rock, jazz or classical is irrelevant, let alone fashionable political gestures. Leonard Bernstein, then conductor of the New York Philharmonic, held a fund-raiser/party for the Black Panthers, which was immortalized by Tom Wolfe as Radical Chic. My point was that rock embraces excess; jazz and classical moderation, and that a huge cultural shift occurred, popular musical taste being a huge part of it.
William Perry recently had an interview in which he confirmed everything Mersheimer said.
For him, the beginning of an aggressive approach to Russia is the Clinton administration and the conflict of two currents within it: one that was against American expansionism and the other that "Russia is a third-class power that cannot demand anything, but have to accept the fait accompli."
The leader of that aggresive current, Perry's main opponent in the Clinton administration and the author of this schathing attitude towards Russia was - Richard Holbrooke, of course.
Why has the US again turned Russia into its enemy? After Obama made fun of Romney's then antiquated anti-Russia views in 2012 it seemed like America had moved on. What changed?
There was an attempt at a 'reset' under Obama between the USA and Russia, but that was to get the latter onside to help out in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, and to prep the 'Pivot to Asia'. It was simply a lull in the conflict that has ebbed and flowed since the end of the Cold War.
Excuse my geopolitical naivete, but is there a legitimate reason for the US to view Russia as an enemy? How would the life of the average American be different if the US did not view and treat Russia adversarially?
Thank you for this thoughtful and measured view on the current war in Ukraine, it's the best I've read so far. I wholeheartedly agree that what we are witnessing is a proxy war waged in Ukraine by the west, primarily the United States, and that the invasion wasn't the least bit surprising to anyone paying attention. Okay, I admit I was surprised by the extent of Russia's "military operation" in Ukraine, as I had just expected them to come in and quickly give Ukraine a good spanking, not to try and obliterate the Ukrainian military as it appears they are doing.
A lot of what you write here speaks to the vast disconnect in world views notable today between the west and other parts of the world, and within the west itself, especially in the United States, caused by seemingly unreconcilable differences in epistemological assumptions. This leads to an inability to perceive the morality of the other side, especially by those assuming a postmodern framework. Oddly enough, the Chinese and Russians seem much better able to appreciate the epistemology and moral objectives of the other side, even while disagreeing with them. This is, I think, what Orban was referring to with his remarks on China.
It is highly ironic that the west appears keen to welcome WWIII for the sake of Ukraine's national sovereignty while at the very same time the EU sanctions Poland and Hungary for attempting to assert their own nations' sovereignty on questions of sexual morality and immigration. This and the fact that because Ukraine is the new fashionable cause the western media has deep-sixed all previous concerns about that nation's lack of 'progress' on DEI issues and rather broad historical ethnonationalist streak. Perhaps since Ukraine's government seems to have been mostly run by CIA psyops for the past decade or so it's a natural fit with our own highly suggestible postmodern elite. Sorry that was a bit snarky but it's really a struggle to suss out the big picture and a great deal seems to be at stake.
"at the very same time the EU sanctions Poland and Hungary for attempting to assert their own nations' sovereignty on questions of sexual morality and immigration"
This was always suspected to be a propaganda. A few days ago it turned out it absolutely was. EU is investigating Hungary over the Elios corruption case (Orban's son-in-law's company currently washing the money in Marbella), why only a few companies took a huge percentage of EU money over the last 12 years and generally about corruption.
I was born in 88, Zeppelin was the first music I got into. Classic rock and then other things. My dad's coworker taught me to play drums and his kit was Bonham-sized, lent it to me for years and gave me rock albums to listen to and learn. Zeppelin IV was the one.
There were a lot of streamlined classic rock rehashes happening when I was a teenager, I think there was a marketing thing going on with that. School of Rock....And stuff like Arctic Monkeys...White Stripes. I did not like the sound of grunge or Nirvana or 90's music at first, the 60's and 70's sounded better right away.
I played in a Zeppelin cover band a few years back. It was fun. People get into it, old and young people came out.
I was a massive fan of Omar Rordriguez Lopez and the Mars Volta, still am. Saw them a few times and the rhythm section takes it to the moon. He does some super out there stuff but lots of Santana and Zeppelin stylings.
I think Niccolo and others, very repulsed by USA dominance and wokeism, want desperately for an alternative big power to emerge, to counter the liberal nonsense we are seeing.
But, Russia isnt the winning horse they want us to believe it is.
It isnt (and probably, has never been) an economic powerhouse, something that is a requirement to play in the big leagues as an empire and project influence and impose values.
Something that the Romans, Persians, Byzantines, Arabs and British did when they held big empires.
AS for today, the only one that can play the role of antagonist to the US and insufferable wokeism is... CHINA:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/countries-by-gdp
and theyre precisely expanding their influence with projects and loans in Africa and Latin america.
Very interesting points. Putin has definitely been too hard-lined with not recognizing Ukrainians as a separate identity from Russians. And never did I see him give any concessions to recognize the oppressions that did exist toward Ukrainian language, culture and life throughout history from both Tsarist and Soviet Russia, the historical memory of which is important to Ukrainians and part of cultural identity. He ignores the history of people like Taras Schevchenko, and the kobzars, even Gogol having to rewrite novels to suit the Tsarist narrative. Worse to him is to go so far as to acknowledge Holodomor, tho he acknowledged Solzenitsyn's works on the tragedies in Stalin era! And it should be obvious to him that Ukrainian is even more linguistically near to Polish than to Russian.
It is as if the Duma thinks these things are just as banal as Western identity politics and pronouns, yet capable of creating a huge cultural disruption or undermining Russia's national interest.
And no problem he had recognizing the Chechens as distinct. That was easy. They are muslim.
Of course Ukrainians as going to feel Nationalistic and opposed to Russia when their leader continuously waves away it all and says "we are the same people" It is just like hearing someone else tell you how much you are alike while ignoring all you say. Definitely did not win over many Ukrainian hearts, among those who weren't already identifying more as Russian.
It's bizarre because he would have the same claims to dispute Ukraine-NATO involvement, Crimea, and Donbass still if regarding Ukrainians as distinct.
Yes you'd never see an American General going forward to die leading his men.
They just get assassinated at meetings by the 'insider threats.'
It's so SAD that a General would risk himself this way.
How many Uke Generals have been killed so far?
Clearly superior leadership.
Let me think about that. WEF is not the first international group to be accused of seeking One World Government.
Found some decent info on Ukraine war at last - https://www.intellinews.com/comment-eastern-ukraine-is-close-to-falling-but-putin-now-needs-a-peace-fast-237784/?source=russia
There's some good stuff in there, but his predictions of Russian public's fortitude to enconomic sanctions is delusional, imo. The response by the West has also galvanized ordinary Russians. Whilst the war analysis seems sound and plausible (that's all anyone can say), this is a far better take on the Putler and Russian people:
http://johnhelmer.net/the-majority-in-russia-supports-putin-for-them-the-war-is-a-form-of-resistance/
I'd also like to hear about this!
Alexander Mercouris suggested a few months back there was some old money involved and some familiar players from WWII regrouping. I don't know the specifics of what he meant. And another author pointed out in Homo Deus, the Nazi ideal of creating a superhuman finding its way into transhumanism. I've seen Klaus Schwab talking about the Internet of All Things as well. On my mind from time to time.
We should be back to regular posting schedule this week. Please hit the like and share buttons above and pls do subscribe if you haven't already.
The Russia piece that I wrote is now the most read, most commented, and most liked entry that I have ever written. Thanks to everyone here.
Need a review of this movie about the war, starring Zelensky. Clearly underestimated, he’s about to spring his master stroke on poor Vlad.
And its a Tranny!
https://youtu.be/EKuyQikTvWQ
Will support Russia's survival after its teeth are cut and its troops out of Ukraine.
No other sane position for a East European. I think this invasion would've happened regardless of NATO expansion. Empires simply do this all the damn time, and smaller countries, if we are to survive, must play them cynically against each other.
NATO will do for now.
Not our fault Russian bros, you could've pushed your OrthoBro religious stuff and sustain traditions in the area, instead you've went in with the tanks and sent like 500K refugees (that should be helped!) in my country and destabilized MY cozy area.
There will be a HUUUUUGE price to pay for going against the End of History.
These days most of the commentary I read on this conflict are mostly from my own Eastern European home country as well.
You know you can trust our media analyses because on the one hand, there is always a 50/50 split of pro-russian and anti-russian sentiment (unless maybe Poland where it's more tilted) and what's more we have always been cynical and clear headed enough to see the ambitions and plots of both of the global super powers without really being invested ideologically in either side (we get fucked either way). So there are some really sober journalistic contributions on the question right now.
By NATO you mean USA.
We should have ended NATO 30 years ago, and this BTW is the end.
Get your own nukes.
Get your own army, although without nukes its fruitless.
Seriously- f— off all of you.
Ukraine is the perfect illustration of your point, since it has given up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a paper assuring the inviolability of its borders
Ukraine could not maintain the nuclear missiles on their land for various reasons, one of which being the launch codes located in Moscow. The American fear was that they would find themselves on the black market.
Ukraine also had a nuclear industry, including for the military sector, so there is no clear evidence that it was unable to operate a nuclear arsenal.
There have been many, many studies done in the West (especially the USA) as to why Ukraine couldn't operate the nuclear arsenal on its soil. Google is your friend.
As this is more or less part of my job, I am well aware that even on scientific and technical subjects, it is quite easy to defend one view or the opposite. And I trust that if disarmament was the path that the US wanted to lead Ukraine in, reports have been published to that effect.
Nevertheless, I would find it very difficult to take them seriously, since a country like France, starting in 1945 from purely theoretical knowledge, has managed to acquire a nuclear arsenal and the means to maintain it in barely 20 years. Ukraine had all the relevant theoretical and technological knowledge in the 1990s. A possible lack of expertise on any technical point would have been easily remedied.
While googling, I learned that in 1993 John Mearsheimer himself argued in Foreign Affairs that a nuclear arsenal was “imperative” if Ukraine was “to maintain peace” and that it would ensure that the Russians, “who have a history of bad relations with Ukraine, do not move to reconquer it.” I don't think he would have seriously considered this option if there was an obvious impossibility.
History has once again proven him right and I know his views on Ukraine are close to yours nowadays...
See below, the launch codes were not really an issue. The materials along plus their engineers could have quite solved the problem.
"Instead, the USA went ahead and armed Ukraine ...": by inciting it in 1994 to give up its nuclear arsenal in exchange for a promise from Russia, the United States and UK to uphold the inviolability of its national borders or by not delivering sufficient anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons until war broke out?
"... and put it on the path towards NATO membership": since the initial application of Ukraine to join NATO in 2008, it was obviously a very very long path.
Which was basically outright rejected back then ("we will consider this application later"), along with Georgia's application. We all know what happened to Georgia right after that
Ukraine was engaged in "Stealth NATO" by way of arms deliveries and training, as we are seeing in this war.
Are you suggesting that the mere fact that Ukraine was buying military equipment from countries other than Russia (which was already equipping a rebel militia in the east of the country) was in itself a provocation?
The fact that several countries are now scrambling to deliver equipment for Ukraine's defence proves that Ukraine had not been properly armed in the first place. And yet Ukraine had requested to purchase some essential defence equipment, such as the Patriot missile defense system, but was turned down.
When you have US advisors on the ground arming the locals with weapons, it definitely is a provocation in light of the Kiev regime's moves towards NATO membership, which the USA backed.
If this was done outside of the context of NATO (neutrality) and without Americans, it would be a different story.
The purchase of high-tech weapons always involves the presence of foreign advisors for training. The same applies to the training of an army in modern combat techniques. The only alternative for Ukraine was to buy military equipment from Russia. A bit like Croatia buying equipment and seeking guidance from Serbia in the early 1990s.
In any case, why the Americans would have waited 14 years to consider Ukraine's application to join NATO remains to be explained.
This was not training in how to use advanced weapon systems that Ukraine had bought from the US like a fleet of modern fighter jets or an integrated air defense system or something like that.
This was the US advising and building up the operational capability of the Ukrainean armed forces as a whole which was rapidly expanding in size with the help of aid from the US and the US' European vassal states.
First the Ukraineans should not have behaved like fanatics (I am starting to suspect it's no coincidence that the SS choose Ukraineans specifically for their Einsatsgruppen) and should not have overthrown their diplomatically very wisely acting elected president in a US-backed coup.
In my opinion the fanatical elements among the Ukraineans (Which seems very common in the state security apparatus and the armed forces) are now getting exactly what they did order, even though of course the US (Whose ruling tribe has a deep hatred of Russia for ethnohistorical reasons) have also pushed Ukraine towards ordering what is now being delivered.
Ukraineans seem to have no understanding of geopolitics and are obviously clueless about diplomacy, there is only a fanatical nationalism that turns against any other european group the second that group no longer support whatever the Ukraineans want, looking at the history of Ukraine.
Of course I deplore the deaths of ordinary Ukrainean civilians - who the Russians actually are taking a lot of steps to not trying to kill given their doctrine and equipment - but as regards the fanatical regime in Kiev that is willing to use it's own citizens as human shields (I have seen many videos of Ukrainean howitzers set up and firing from residential areas) and also is willing to use a kind of reverse moral nuclear blackmailing technique towards the European public, the rest of Europe is better of with it destroyed.
150 US Army Florida National Guardsmen and associated other trainers were pulled out of Western Ukraine just prior to invasion, just as we were evacuating our embassy. We have been training them openly for years.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2022-02-10/florida-national-guard-task-force-gator-ukraine-training-russia-4937373.html
And you feel that the Ukrainian army should be trained only by Russians, who are already drilling the irredentist militias of Dombass?
No, I think it's an open provocation, rather like you , yourself.
Which was the answer to the question.
Here's a summary of US/Ukr relations: we are far better at using you than you are at using us.
The Ukrainians had 30 years to get ready for this war.
They didn't.
They have been at war for 8 years, nope.
More provocations: per the OSCE the Ukrainian side dramatically increased it's shelling of separatist regions just prior to the war beginning, as well as move it's 60,000 best troops to the area, to face about 14,000 RU backed separatist militia.
https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-22%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=63057
You got played, DC played you, you Ukrainians are NOT INNOCENT, but a country run by Kleptocrats, gangsters, acting as our money laundering operation as well as getting involved in our USA politics.
You got in bed with the Democratic party to get rid of Trump, now predictably the Democratic party incited you to war with Russia, abandoned you to your fate and it's upon you. Your government incited war with Russia after being TOLD the USA wasn't coming, so either Zelensky is delusional or corrupt - probably both.
Ukrainians are as innocent as Afghans - you aren't.
>>But at least we got rid of Trump !
BYE
Nice vague statement of reaffirmation of faith while ignoring contrary evidence you got there.
Feel free to keep your head in the sand.
"Full Interoperability with NATO" https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FNu1VOtXwAQC-oq?format=png&name=medium
Vice-versa. I already left a comment down below. You can keep pretending that it's always NATO, and that NATO tends to plot against NATO, and that NATO is responsible for everything. But, unfortunately, keeping your head in the sand on that there's actors other than NATO out there too only makes you blind to any proceedings when it is, in fact, not NATO.
You also forgot to ask yourself, who benefits. Because NATO is certainly not benefiting. So it can't be NATO.
P.S. In case you haven't noticed, the idea of joining NATO was the FIRST point Ze has publicly "conceded" during negotiations.
Thank you NATO spokesman.
If the USA is still part of NATO , then it was NATO
Here’s the Florida Army National Guard February 10, in Ukraine.
No, DeSantis didn’t send them there on his own.
Its been a regular rotation for years.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2022-02-10/florida-national-guard-task-force-gator-ukraine-training-russia-4937373.html
I repeat my question above: do you feel that the Ukrainian army should be trained only by Russians, who are already training the irredentist militias of Dombass, or that it should not be trained at all?
The Florida National Guard is, to say the least, probably not the best the US Army can offer when it comes to training. This would rather confirm that there was no clear will to provide the finest training and equipment to the Ukrainian army.
I answered above, but actually ....
you seem to know nothing of the subject.
The NG are actually quite competent, usually have active duty time and go to the same training and schools as the regular forces.
They don't get as much time training as units in mass formations, at least in theory. In practice the difference is not too stark. Combat and other performance support the practical results, in some cases the combat or gunnery performance is superior as the Guard units are together for many years allowing better cohesion.
In measured performance the NG has often enough performed superior to Active duty units again due to cohesion and lack of disruption from constant rotations.
As trainers the NG are often preferred, they usually have real world civilian jobs and lives which allow the NG to relate better to others outside the military. They also often have civilian job experience that is valuable technically and practically in training and administration. Often enough they are police IRL which in America means they are excellent at being diplomatic and tactful, patient.
So while we have not sent 'the best' in terms of whatever movie is playing in the head, we did send the best at training.
However you insolent whiner, who TF entitled you to 'be sent our best?' You think you're ordering room service here?
If you don't like the NG or anything about the USA or US MIL, just leave a negative rating on Yelp, Biatch.
I'm sensing Polish here BTW, they are very, very entitled. Very.
Not even the Saudi's who DID buy our government act so entitled.
Honestly, what can East Europe on its own do to Russia, especially when you’re dependent on their natural resources? Why act so confident about the end results when you haven’t even consulted with the ones with the military: the Americans?
What do you think of the view that this is a clash of civilizations, and that if sanctions unseat Putin it's more likely to usher in a new Stalin than a new Gorbachev? e.g. https://www.lotuseaters.com/sanctions-on-russia-will-create-a-monster-11-03-22
Clash of power blocs/civilizations is the same thing. Any post-Putin regime will be even more antagonistic towards the West. They know that they are in existential defence mode.
For Americans, this is the BIG blind spot they aren't seeing....as this being an existential threat. Americans' myopia knows no limits.
What Americans do you mean? We don’t have myopic vision- we know our government well.
Too well.
We the Americans are TARGETS of our own government.
As for the rest of you, you are simply seeing now what we have learned to our cost for years- our government are lawless criminals.
As for defending you; Go to Hell.
Get your own nukes, and risk nuclear ☢️ extermination on your own behalf.
No nukes, no nation.
BTW the Russian sanctions will enrich US energy producers, our own Oligarchs. We’re going to take every pfennig and Euro for the next 100 years - if you let it happen.
We being “America” as you put it.
Seriously- shove off. Which is what’s happening you know. This is the end of NATO, and while 30 years too late not a moment too soon.
You’re not defending us, your govt are lawless criminals and our govts (in Europe) are in league with them. And your population and ours are being robbed by the combined group. Yes your gang will steal all our money as a result of this, but our elites are on board with this as they’ll get a slice.
Yes to all.
And the sooner we’re divorced Honey the better.
PS - actually we are defending you, unless you’re a nuclear power. With our nukes, which means our nation subject to nuclear retaliation (the only one that counts).
In truth whats also happening is the Euros have had that all rent free- and the Bill just came due. We spend double our GDP than Europeans NATO goals of 2% , but usually we’re paying 3-4X the amount of GDP Europeans pay.
If the rent is too high get your own place, or a new landlord (Xi or Putin available).
And yes perhaps it’s time for NATO to end?
And correct we’re not defending anymore- we’re collecting back dues.
Ciao!
I thought we agreed that your govt are crooks. They aren't defending you or us. All that money on "defense" - it's just a way of funnelling your money to military corporations. Sure us Europeans haven't yet, been rinsed quite so thoroughly as the US public, but that's gonna change. We'll soon be buying your expensive gas, even though the Russian stuff is easier to get and probably half the price. I think this is one of the main motivations here - use NATO to provoke Russia to keep Western Europe in a subservient state. We are collaborating in our own impoverishment - at least our elites will get some crumbs.
You never have ever defended or liberated us, only ever done what is in your interest, and forced GAE shit down our throats. Go fuck yourself.
P.S. how can I be in complete agreement with so many of your other comments on this article? Is this schizo or trolling?
Amazingly, Fukuyama is still standing by the 'end of history' thesis, with a few minor corrections. https://www.americanpurpose.com/articles/preparing-for-defeat/
"pure competitor" This should be "peer competitor", looks like Isaac Chotiner never read a single page of Mearsheimer and doesn't actually understand Mearsheimer's US-China theory so he's unable to transcribe correctly
PS they corrected it - your link is to the archive of the original
As a European I could only dream of a rearmed Europe. The thing that Russia and the US don't seem to realise or just haven't been drilled enough is that there is a very nasty historical cycle in which German go broke -> German starve -> German make big army -> German wreak royal havoc. Ask Russia and the US how it went for them the last time they had to fight off an armed Europe. Yes, at the end they were victorious but the cost was immense, always was - when Germans go to war it's quite ugly. And BTW I have a secret theory that the Germans have been waiting for a conflict like this for the better part of 80 years now. It took them less than 20 years to go from absolutely destroyed, bled out country to military hegemon during the 2nd World War. How much time is it going to take them now, as a G8 economy. We talk about not waking up the bear a lot, but no one talks how we've been internationally humiliating the eagle for so long, what if it decides to fly?
Let it fly.
BTW it was of course the French before it was the Germans.
Lesson; maybe its…the Anglo Saxon?
Do none of you people have children?
Why bother?
I am a Zoomer and my favorite bands are Led Zeppelin and Steely Dan.
I'm a boomer and hated that music. Not to mention the clothes and hair. I'm watching the Dave Brubek Quartet on Youtube these days. Check out "Golden Brown." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXEh9e7VL7k
Too bad the Beatles blew guys like that out of the water. But, instead of corporate cool the womyns went literally berserk for feminized boys. The massive cultural shift that occurred in less than a decade is mind-boggling. Before the Beatles, rock music was considered something for teenagers. As an intelligent man you were supposed to grow up and into jazz and/or classical music. There was supposed to be some room for decorum, reflection and moderation. You dressed up a bit when you went to a concert.
Someone needs to write a book on what the hell happened to Anglo-American men, or western men in general.
I will give it a listen. When it comes to jazz, the only thing that I've ever liked is Miles Davis' On the Corner, as it was funky.
99% of good jazz is the New Orleans boogie stuff
If you want funky you want afrojazz. Ezra Collective, Makaya McRaven, Sons of Kemet, The Comet is Coming
Check out the live Turnaroundphrase by Miles; there be some funk
Some of the best classical music composers were either very effeminate, gay or weren't very in line with the serious masculine trope ( I mean they were musicians making heartfelt music, otherwise they would have made a name in other more masculine domaines.)
Jazz musicians were some of the most serious fighters in the earliest civil rights movements, not very pro-establishment.
Rockers weren't really that feminine (not even the Beatles) especially all the later spawn of the genre like hard rock and metal, which were targeted to a very masculine low class crowd (most rockers even these days are quite anti-LGBT)Rock music was one of the greatest cultural exports of the US and was the reason I liked it when I was a kid (still love the music)
I'm not arguing against Dionysian excess, per se. Whether you like rock, jazz or classical is irrelevant, let alone fashionable political gestures. Leonard Bernstein, then conductor of the New York Philharmonic, held a fund-raiser/party for the Black Panthers, which was immortalized by Tom Wolfe as Radical Chic. My point was that rock embraces excess; jazz and classical moderation, and that a huge cultural shift occurred, popular musical taste being a huge part of it.
WHITE WOMEN.
You’re welcome, a nice short book.
Send Royalties.
I’ve always noticed it’s annoying white women who say “you’re welcome” after making some snide correction.
Well done!
I need to speak to your manager please-?
William Perry recently had an interview in which he confirmed everything Mersheimer said.
For him, the beginning of an aggressive approach to Russia is the Clinton administration and the conflict of two currents within it: one that was against American expansionism and the other that "Russia is a third-class power that cannot demand anything, but have to accept the fait accompli."
The leader of that aggresive current, Perry's main opponent in the Clinton administration and the author of this schathing attitude towards Russia was - Richard Holbrooke, of course.
Bill Clinton's roommate, Strobe Talbott - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strobe_Talbott
Actually it's not recent; it's The Guardian's interview with Perry from 2016
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/russian-hostility-to-west-partly-caused-by-west
another fine addition to this morning’s coffee but you really should have mentioned John Paul Jones
You're right. Horribly underrated figure. That rhythm section was second to none.
The lemon song is possibly the greatest bass line ever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u43IgCg_yWw
listen to him riff in the first minute and a half.. fucking brilliant
Quite possibly my favourite song of theirs.
Kashmir
Why has the US again turned Russia into its enemy? After Obama made fun of Romney's then antiquated anti-Russia views in 2012 it seemed like America had moved on. What changed?
There was an attempt at a 'reset' under Obama between the USA and Russia, but that was to get the latter onside to help out in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran, and to prep the 'Pivot to Asia'. It was simply a lull in the conflict that has ebbed and flowed since the end of the Cold War.
Excuse my geopolitical naivete, but is there a legitimate reason for the US to view Russia as an enemy? How would the life of the average American be different if the US did not view and treat Russia adversarially?
It will be greatly improved when DC falls on its face.
Hah, do you seriously think that anyone in DC evaluates what would be best for their citizenry?
Thank you for this thoughtful and measured view on the current war in Ukraine, it's the best I've read so far. I wholeheartedly agree that what we are witnessing is a proxy war waged in Ukraine by the west, primarily the United States, and that the invasion wasn't the least bit surprising to anyone paying attention. Okay, I admit I was surprised by the extent of Russia's "military operation" in Ukraine, as I had just expected them to come in and quickly give Ukraine a good spanking, not to try and obliterate the Ukrainian military as it appears they are doing.
A lot of what you write here speaks to the vast disconnect in world views notable today between the west and other parts of the world, and within the west itself, especially in the United States, caused by seemingly unreconcilable differences in epistemological assumptions. This leads to an inability to perceive the morality of the other side, especially by those assuming a postmodern framework. Oddly enough, the Chinese and Russians seem much better able to appreciate the epistemology and moral objectives of the other side, even while disagreeing with them. This is, I think, what Orban was referring to with his remarks on China.
It is highly ironic that the west appears keen to welcome WWIII for the sake of Ukraine's national sovereignty while at the very same time the EU sanctions Poland and Hungary for attempting to assert their own nations' sovereignty on questions of sexual morality and immigration. This and the fact that because Ukraine is the new fashionable cause the western media has deep-sixed all previous concerns about that nation's lack of 'progress' on DEI issues and rather broad historical ethnonationalist streak. Perhaps since Ukraine's government seems to have been mostly run by CIA psyops for the past decade or so it's a natural fit with our own highly suggestible postmodern elite. Sorry that was a bit snarky but it's really a struggle to suss out the big picture and a great deal seems to be at stake.
"at the very same time the EU sanctions Poland and Hungary for attempting to assert their own nations' sovereignty on questions of sexual morality and immigration"
This was always suspected to be a propaganda. A few days ago it turned out it absolutely was. EU is investigating Hungary over the Elios corruption case (Orban's son-in-law's company currently washing the money in Marbella), why only a few companies took a huge percentage of EU money over the last 12 years and generally about corruption.
Realists blame the victim for the acts of the oppressor. Makes perfect sense to me:
It’s a great power’s right to oppress. If you defy, you are asking for it.
Nice sarcasm but "right" as a concept doesn't enter into it. You need to watch more Mearsheimer.
The Ukrainians and Americans provoked- and Provoked- and Provoked.
Despite clear warnings.
Thats not victimhood, and a response is not oppression.
I was born in 88, Zeppelin was the first music I got into. Classic rock and then other things. My dad's coworker taught me to play drums and his kit was Bonham-sized, lent it to me for years and gave me rock albums to listen to and learn. Zeppelin IV was the one.
There were a lot of streamlined classic rock rehashes happening when I was a teenager, I think there was a marketing thing going on with that. School of Rock....And stuff like Arctic Monkeys...White Stripes. I did not like the sound of grunge or Nirvana or 90's music at first, the 60's and 70's sounded better right away.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR3r3ezTRT0
I played in a Zeppelin cover band a few years back. It was fun. People get into it, old and young people came out.
I was a massive fan of Omar Rordriguez Lopez and the Mars Volta, still am. Saw them a few times and the rhythm section takes it to the moon. He does some super out there stuff but lots of Santana and Zeppelin stylings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-U8M77mAaY&list=OLAK5uy_lUArurxxQe2I05dfQw-iqDwDMa6aiCviE&index=1
These live vids I love with freakazoid Deantoni Parks
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6ZgytCOBw8