Geopolitics

[MTF]

How many times has the military budget been defeated in the Senate (or House)? How much partisanship is there when it comes time to vote on that one particular item which usually runs to a fifth of total US budgetary expenditure? Almost none.

Where in the world is the budget defeated at final vote? It has all been negotiated before the vote. Also the budget was down on $ terms and % of GDP during most of the Obama administration. Just because the amount isn't the one you would choose doesn't mean that there is "overwhelming consensus".

Lastly, how the military is employed is far more important than the size of its budget. I would rather have the budget double and the military be employed for 0 unjust reasons, than have it halved but yet see the military involved in another Iraq.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Where in the world is the budget defeated at final vote? It has all been negotiated before the vote. Also the budget was down on $ terms and % of GDP during most of the Obama administration. Just because the amount isn't the one you would choose doesn't mean that there is "overwhelming consensus".

Lastly, how the military is employed is far more important than the size of its budget. I would rather have the budget double and the military be employed for 0 unjust reasons, than have it halved but yet see the military involved in another Iraq.

I read an article a while ago which argued, convincingly, that the US military budget is the only item where lawmakers from both sides of the aisle try to outdo each other in terms of how much money is provided, regardless of which party is in power. Will resource it.

You use Afghanistan as an example. Had the media never argued for a US withdrawal?

As for Syria, this one wasn't long in the offing: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-debate-vote-cameron-action-against-isis-live (2015). Also, Libya and countless other examples.

As for the budget, it's indicative of how the system works that neither party ever really contests the role of the military (they might envisage it doing different things, but they never envisage it being smaller and less expensive).

You often hear that in these polarized times, Republicans and Democrats are deadlocked on almost everything. But the real scandal is what both sides agree on. The best example of this might be the defense budget. Last week, the Democratic House, which Republicans say is filled with radicals, voted to appropriate $733 billion for 2020 defense spending. The Republicans are outraged because they — along with President Trump — want that number to be $750 billion. In other words, on the largest item of discretionary spending in the federal budget, accounting for more than half of the total, Democrats and Republicans are divided by 2.3 percent. That is the cancerous consensus in Washington today.
The United States’ defense budget is out of control, lacking strategic coherence, utterly mismanaged, ruinously wasteful and yet eternally expanding. Last year, after a quarter-century of resisting, the Pentagon finally subjected itself to an audit — which, in true Pentagon style, cost more than $400 million. Most of its agencies — Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps — failed. “We never expected to pass,” admitted then- Deputy Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan.
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction has identified $15.5 billion of waste. But that is after reviewing only $53 billion of the $126 billion appropriated for Afghanistan reconstruction through 2017. He wrote in a 2018 letter, “[We] have likely uncovered only a portion of the total waste, fraud, abuse, and failed efforts.”


Outside war zones, there are the usual examples of $14,000 toilet-seat lids, $1,280 cups (yes, cups) and $4.6 million for crab and lobster meals. Remember when then- Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the Pentagon had about as many people in military bands as the State Department had active Foreign Service officers? Well, it’s still true today.
President Trump says he is a savvy businessman. Yet his attitude toward the Pentagon is that of an indulgent parent. “We love and need our Military and gave them everything — and more,” he tweeted last year. Far from bringing rationality to defense spending, he has simply opened the piggy bank while trying to slash spending on almost every other government agency. The Pentagon is the most fiscally irresponsible government agency, but the Republicans’ response has been to simply give it more.


The much deeper danger, however, is spotlighted by Jessica Tuchman Mathews in a superb essay in the New York Review of Books. Mathews points out that we tend to think about the defense budget as a percentage of the country’s gross domestic product, which is fundamentally erroneous. The defense budget should be related to the threats the country faces, not the size of its economy. If a country’s GDP grows by 30 percent, she writes, it “has no reason to spend 30 percent more on its military. To the contrary, unless threats worsen, you would expect that, over time, defense spending as a percentage of a growing economy should decline...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...3a9e1a-a978-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html

Greenwald, considered a heretical figure these days, was making the same point 15 years ago (except these days he would argue there is almost no real difference between the parties). Others have been making the point for decades.

Obviously, all of the leading Fox News Republican presidential candidates advocate a continuation and worsening of this state of affairs. And so do the leading Democratic presidential candidates (h/t Blue Texan):

Hillary Clinton:

To help our forces recover from Iraq and prepare them to confront the full range of twenty-first-century threats, I will work to expand and modernize the militaryso that fighting wars no longer comes at the expense of deployments for long-term deterrence, military readiness, or responses to urgent needs at home.

John Edwards:

I will double the budget for recruitment and raise the standards for the recruitment pool so that we can reduce our reliance on felony waivers and other exceptions. In addition, I will increase our investment in the maintenance of our equipmentfor the safety of our troops.

Barack Obama:

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. . . .

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. . . . We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. . . .
I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.
We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability -- to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.

It is, of course, possible to argue that the U.S. should maintain the strongest military force in the world but that we need not spend more than the rest of the world combined, nor increase what we spend every year, yet those issues can't even be broached in good company. "Reducing defense spending" has become as much of a bipartisan, toxic position as "increasing taxes." They both can only go in one direction.

None of this is to suggest that there are no differences between the parties, etc. Plainly, there are, and -- as even Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich now seem to realize -- some of those differences are meaningful. Although one can only speculate, it seems highly unlikely, for instance, that a President Gore would have invaded Iraq or ushered in most of the repugnant abuses that have degraded every aspect of our country over the last 7 years. Even if those differences are piecemeal rather than fundamental, they still matter, and at times, they can matter a lot.

Nonetheless, it's still worth noting (as Matt Stoller recently documented) that despite all the incessant chatter about "change" and the intensity of election conflicts, our most significant, dubious policies -- the ones that actually shape what kind of country we are and how we are perceived around the world -- don't really get debated at all. Those who try to are quickly and widely dismissed as fringe, insane, angry, deranged "crazies."

https://www.salon.com/2008/01/02/military_spending/

Setting that aside, you still have the glaring role of the military censoring (actually censoring) film scripts. In other cases, they make strong suggestions (either show us in a positive light or you get no access, which you might argue is fair except the military is a public expenditure which ought be open to dissenting, protest, filmmakers as it is to those who want to make war propaganda by other means). None of this is sensational, unless you (not you personally) pretend it doesn't exist. It's logical.

 

[Dante]

https://amp.marca.com/en/football/spanish-football/2022/03/23/623b515eca474194558b462d.html

Hector Bellerin on the war in Ukraine: I think it's racist that other conflicts have been ignored

It's White Privilege in action.

 

[tomaldinho1]

I'm assuming you've clicked the link, noted the author, and are asking rhetorically, or you have an uncanny appreciation of the man's academic idiom. Feel free to McCarthyise him if you're in the know. I'll use incontestable (state-approved) sources next time.


That's not my argument. I'm not saying totalitarian societies are more free, I'm saying that, in general, their propaganda apparatuses are not as sophisticated as those in the West which have to navigate freedom of assembly and freedom for dissent. If you can jail your political opponents and dissidents, you don't have to deal with them either through exclusion or marginalization. In the West, the "legacy press" both excludes and marginalizes that which runs absolutely contrary to the prevailing orthodoxy (because it has to deal with its dissidents entirely by democratic means, which usually amounts to slander and caricature). You can test that, too, even taking partisanship into account (on matters military, there is overwhelming consensus in the US that would be the envy of totalitarian states; and not because politicians are forced to vote a certain way, but because the system works to reward those who will vote a certain way).

I just googled the title you quoted - wanted to make sure it was the same person as he seemed an biased source.

Re second point, you said the ‘freer’ a society is the more heavily propagandarised it is. That’s different to saying the propaganda it uses is more sophisticated.

There are obviously very different approaches to propaganda but I’d say if you did a poll in a society which considers itself ‘free’ versus one which is totalitarian (let’s use the US and China as topical examples) and asked something along the lines of ‘are you exposed to propaganda daily?’, the overwhelming majority of the freer country would say ‘yes’ whereas I don’t think the opposite side would.

For me, if you’re to judge sophistication of propaganda it will be the country who has the strictest censorship WHILST having the least amount of people be resentful of that censorship. It’s about awareness and which societies are aware of how they are being influenced. Not a society in which Joe Rogan ascended to prophet like status.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I just googled the title you quoted - wanted to make sure it was the same person as he seemed an biased source.

Re second point, you said the ‘freer’ a society is the more heavily propagandarised it is. That’s different to saying the propaganda it uses is more sophisticated.

There are obviously very different approaches to propaganda but I’d say if you did a poll in a society which considers itself ‘free’ versus one which is totalitarian (let’s use the US and China as topical examples) and asked something along the lines of ‘are you exposed to propaganda daily?’, the overwhelming majority of the freer country would say ‘yes’ whereas I don’t think the opposite side would.

For me, if you’re to judge sophistication of propaganda it will be the country who has the strictest censorship WHILST having the least amount of people be resentful of that censorship. It’s about awareness and which societies are aware of how they are being influenced. Not a society in which Joe Rogan ascended to prophet like status.

Yeah, that's fair enough.

The point I'm making is that freer societies are more propagandized for a few reasons. One, a free society doesn't use physical force to attain consensus. It uses symbolic violence over actual violence where possible. Two, propaganda is more sophisticated in such societies because the free press creates the illusion of dissent insofar as it narrows the spectrum of debate via its filtering mechanisms (if you look at my reply above, you'll see Zakaria reproduces this exact distinction where he frames the problem of unanimity over the military budget as being one of "waste" rather than illegitimacy: that's a form of safe dissent in the mainstream context). To paraphrase Chomsky, "If I went on television and said that Iran or the Soviets were evil, no one would question it; if I instead said the US is a terrorist state, people would look at me like I was insane, and with good reason: because the media works to prevent you from making the kind of cases you need to make in order to disentangle the means by which discourse functions" (along those lines). He doesn't maintain that the US is less free than China or Russia, he argues that it is unquestionably more free than just about every country in the world. It is because of this freedom that its propaganda has to be more sophisticated. People have to believe what they're doing or they won't do it (you can't force them). Which moves to the next point, that in order to preserve special interests the discursive frame is limited and the spectrum is made tightly narrow within mainstream media. The scope for dissent exists, but dissent is hampered. You have to go to independent journalists or journalists working for backwater newspapers to find views that really run entirely contrary to the establishment mainstream (that of the NYT and WP).

The thing about totalitarian states is that the people living in them know that they are totalitarian. They have to pretend differently in public for fear of reprisal, but they aren't blind to it.


I think sophistication is better judged by the society which doesn't require (top-down) censorship in order to propagandize (which is typical of the West). That occurs through class stratification, "gentle symbolic violence", as is the case in school systems, and a very blunt reality whereby you can go so far and no further unless you operate within the constraints set by orthodoxy, which is something journalists working for mainstream outlets have recognized). This clip where Chomsky and Marr debate the inns and outs of the matter is worth watching:

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Chomsky Interview:

Q: Noam, we are already a month into the war in Ukraine and peace talks have stalled. In fact, Putin is turning up the volume on violence as the West increases military aid to Ukraine. In a previous interview, you compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Is Putin’s strategy then straight out of Hitler’s playbook? Does he want to occupy all of Ukraine? Is he trying to rebuild the Russian empire? Is this why peace negotiations have stalled?

A: There is very little credible information about the negotiations. Some of the information leaking out sounds mildly optimistic. There is good reason to suppose that if the U.S. were to agree to participate seriously, with a constructive program, the possibilities for an end to the horror would be enhanced.

What a constructive program would be, at least in general outline, is no secret. The primary element is commitment to neutrality for Ukraine: no membership in a hostile military alliance, no hosting of weapons aimed at Russia (even those misleadingly called “defensive”), no military maneuvers with hostile military forces.

That would hardly be something new in world affairs, even where nothing formal exists. Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army.

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. There should be moves towards some kind of federal arrangement for Ukraine involving a degree of autonomy for the Donbass region, along the general lines of what remains of Minsk II. Again, that would be nothing new in world affairs. No two cases are identical, and no real example is anywhere near perfect, but federal structures exist in Switzerland and Belgium, among other cases — even the U.S. to an extent. Serious diplomatic efforts might find a solution to this problem, or at least contain the flames.

The Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021 …. was the statement was another purposeful Exercise in poking the bear in the eye. And the flames are real. Estimates are that some 15,000 people have been killed in conflict in this region since 2014.

That leaves Crimea. On Crimea, the West has two choices. One is to recognize that the Russian annexation is simply a fact of life for now, irreversible without actions that would destroy Ukraine and possibly far more. The other is to disregard the highly likely consequences and to strike heroic gestures about how the U.S. “will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea,” as the joint statement proclaims, accompanied by many eloquent pronouncements by others who are willing to consign Ukraine to utter catastrophe while advertising their bravery.

Like it or not, those are the choices.

Does Putin want to “occupy all of Ukraine and rebuild the Russian empire?” His announced goals (mainly neutralization) are quite different, including his statement that it would be madness to try to reconstruct the old Soviet Union, but he might have had something like this in mind. If so, it’s hard to imagine what he and his circle still do. For Russia to occupy Ukraine would make its experience in Afghanistan look like a picnic in the park. By now that’s abundantly clear.

Putin does have the military capacity — and judging by Chechnya and other escapades, the moral capacity — to leave Ukraine in smoldering ruins. That would mean no occupation, no Russian empire and no more Putin.

Our eyes are rightly focused on the mounting horrors of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It would be a mistake, however, to forget that the joint statement is only one of the pleasures that the imperial mind is quietly conjuring up.

A few weeks ago, we discussed President Biden’s National Defense Authorization Act, as little known as the joint statement. This brilliant document — again quoting Michael Klare — calls for “an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank” — meant to encircle China, including Taiwan, “ominously enough.”

We might ask how China feels about the fact that the U.S. Indo-Pacific command is now reported to be planning to enhance the encirclement, doubling its spending in fiscal year 2022, in part to develop “a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.”

For defense, of course, so the Chinese [government has] no reason for concern.


Q: There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis. But what about Ukraine arming civilians to fight against the invaders? Isn’t this morally justified on the same grounds that resistance against the Nazis was morally justified?

A: Just war theory, regrettably, has about as much relevance to the real world as “humanitarian intervention,” “responsibility to protect” or “defending democracy.”

On the surface, it seems a virtual truism that a people in arms have the right to defend themselves against a brutal aggressor. But as always in this sad world, questions arise when we think about it a little.

We have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.
Take the resistance against the Nazis. There could hardly have been a more noble cause.

One can certainly understand and sympathize with the motives of Herschel Grynszpan when he assassinated a German diplomat in 1938; or the British-trained partisans who assassinated the Nazi murderer Reinhard Heydrich in May 1942. And one can admire their courage and passion for justice, without qualification.

That’s not the end, however. The first provided the Nazis with the pretext for the atrocities of Kristallnacht and impelled the Nazi program further toward its hideous outcomes. The second led to the shocking Lidice massacres.

Events have consequences. The innocent suffer, perhaps terribly. Such questions cannot be avoided by people with a moral bone in their bodies. The questions cannot fail to arise when we consider whether and how to arm those courageously resisting murderous aggression.

That’s the least of it. In the present case, we also have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.

It is not encouraging that over a third of Americans favor “taking military action [in Ukraine] even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia,” perhaps inspired by commentators and political leaders who should think twice before doing their Winston Churchill impersonations.

Perhaps ways can be found to provide needed arms to the defenders of Ukraine to repel the aggressors while avoiding dire consequences. But we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is a simple matter, to be settled by bold pronouncements.


Q: Do you anticipate dramatic political developments inside Russia if the war lasts much longer or if Ukrainians resist even after formal battles have ended? After all, Russia’s economy is already under siege and could end up with an economic collapse unparalleled in recent history.


A: I don’t know enough about Russia even to hazard a guess. One person who does know enough at least to “speculate” — and only that, as he reminds us — is Anatol Lieven, whose insights have been a very useful guide all along. He regards “dramatic political developments” as highly unlikely because of the nature of the harsh kleptocracy that Putin has carefully constructed. Among the more optimistic guesses, “the most likely scenario,” Lieven writes, “is a sort of semi-coup, most of which will never become apparent in public, by which Putin and his immediate associates will step down ‘voluntarily’ in return for guarantees of their personal immunity from arrest and their family’s wealth. Who would succeed as president in these circumstances is a totally open question.”

And not necessarily a pleasant question to consider.

https://truthout.org/articles/choms...ng-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/

 

[RedTiger]

Chomsky Interview:

Q: Noam, we are already a month into the war in Ukraine and peace talks have stalled. In fact, Putin is turning up the volume on violence as the West increases military aid to Ukraine. In a previous interview, you compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Is Putin’s strategy then straight out of Hitler’s playbook? Does he want to occupy all of Ukraine? Is he trying to rebuild the Russian empire? Is this why peace negotiations have stalled?

A: There is very little credible information about the negotiations. Some of the information leaking out sounds mildly optimistic. There is good reason to suppose that if the U.S. were to agree to participate seriously, with a constructive program, the possibilities for an end to the horror would be enhanced.

What a constructive program would be, at least in general outline, is no secret. The primary element is commitment to neutrality for Ukraine: no membership in a hostile military alliance, no hosting of weapons aimed at Russia (even those misleadingly called “defensive”), no military maneuvers with hostile military forces.

That would hardly be something new in world affairs, even where nothing formal exists. Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army.

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. There should be moves towards some kind of federal arrangement for Ukraine involving a degree of autonomy for the Donbass region, along the general lines of what remains of Minsk II. Again, that would be nothing new in world affairs. No two cases are identical, and no real example is anywhere near perfect, but federal structures exist in Switzerland and Belgium, among other cases — even the U.S. to an extent. Serious diplomatic efforts might find a solution to this problem, or at least contain the flames.

The Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021 …. was the statement was another purposeful Exercise in poking the bear in the eye. And the flames are real. Estimates are that some 15,000 people have been killed in conflict in this region since 2014.

That leaves Crimea. On Crimea, the West has two choices. One is to recognize that the Russian annexation is simply a fact of life for now, irreversible without actions that would destroy Ukraine and possibly far more. The other is to disregard the highly likely consequences and to strike heroic gestures about how the U.S. “will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea,” as the joint statement proclaims, accompanied by many eloquent pronouncements by others who are willing to consign Ukraine to utter catastrophe while advertising their bravery.

Like it or not, those are the choices.

Does Putin want to “occupy all of Ukraine and rebuild the Russian empire?” His announced goals (mainly neutralization) are quite different, including his statement that it would be madness to try to reconstruct the old Soviet Union, but he might have had something like this in mind. If so, it’s hard to imagine what he and his circle still do. For Russia to occupy Ukraine would make its experience in Afghanistan look like a picnic in the park. By now that’s abundantly clear.

Putin does have the military capacity — and judging by Chechnya and other escapades, the moral capacity — to leave Ukraine in smoldering ruins. That would mean no occupation, no Russian empire and no more Putin.

Our eyes are rightly focused on the mounting horrors of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It would be a mistake, however, to forget that the joint statement is only one of the pleasures that the imperial mind is quietly conjuring up.

A few weeks ago, we discussed President Biden’s National Defense Authorization Act, as little known as the joint statement. This brilliant document — again quoting Michael Klare — calls for “an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank” — meant to encircle China, including Taiwan, “ominously enough.”

We might ask how China feels about the fact that the U.S. Indo-Pacific command is now reported to be planning to enhance the encirclement, doubling its spending in fiscal year 2022, in part to develop “a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.”

For defense, of course, so the Chinese [government has] no reason for concern.


Q: There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis. But what about Ukraine arming civilians to fight against the invaders? Isn’t this morally justified on the same grounds that resistance against the Nazis was morally justified?

A: Just war theory, regrettably, has about as much relevance to the real world as “humanitarian intervention,” “responsibility to protect” or “defending democracy.”

On the surface, it seems a virtual truism that a people in arms have the right to defend themselves against a brutal aggressor. But as always in this sad world, questions arise when we think about it a little.

We have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.
Take the resistance against the Nazis. There could hardly have been a more noble cause.

One can certainly understand and sympathize with the motives of Herschel Grynszpan when he assassinated a German diplomat in 1938; or the British-trained partisans who assassinated the Nazi murderer Reinhard Heydrich in May 1942. And one can admire their courage and passion for justice, without qualification.

That’s not the end, however. The first provided the Nazis with the pretext for the atrocities of Kristallnacht and impelled the Nazi program further toward its hideous outcomes. The second led to the shocking Lidice massacres.

Events have consequences. The innocent suffer, perhaps terribly. Such questions cannot be avoided by people with a moral bone in their bodies. The questions cannot fail to arise when we consider whether and how to arm those courageously resisting murderous aggression.

That’s the least of it. In the present case, we also have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.

It is not encouraging that over a third of Americans favor “taking military action [in Ukraine] even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia,” perhaps inspired by commentators and political leaders who should think twice before doing their Winston Churchill impersonations.

Perhaps ways can be found to provide needed arms to the defenders of Ukraine to repel the aggressors while avoiding dire consequences. But we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is a simple matter, to be settled by bold pronouncements.


Q: Do you anticipate dramatic political developments inside Russia if the war lasts much longer or if Ukrainians resist even after formal battles have ended? After all, Russia’s economy is already under siege and could end up with an economic collapse unparalleled in recent history.


A: I don’t know enough about Russia even to hazard a guess. One person who does know enough at least to “speculate” — and only that, as he reminds us — is Anatol Lieven, whose insights have been a very useful guide all along. He regards “dramatic political developments” as highly unlikely because of the nature of the harsh kleptocracy that Putin has carefully constructed. Among the more optimistic guesses, “the most likely scenario,” Lieven writes, “is a sort of semi-coup, most of which will never become apparent in public, by which Putin and his immediate associates will step down ‘voluntarily’ in return for guarantees of their personal immunity from arrest and their family’s wealth. Who would succeed as president in these circumstances is a totally open question.”

And not necessarily a pleasant question to consider.

https://truthout.org/articles/choms...ng-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/

I love Chomsky. I love him so much.

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Maybe ISIS and Hamas should give this a shot as well

 

[The Corinthian]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Very good.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Hamas

The next time it flares up, I think they probably will. The US announced that they're providing a $1m fund to investigate claims of abuse in the occupied territories. Might be a sign to the Israelis.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Germany trying to end dependence within two years instead of five.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Law of unintended consequences? Mexico talking about maybe shrugging off US/EU (don't see/know how viable that is, but protectionism is on the rise).

Background for some of the events unfolding regarding "side-taking" in the NATO/Russia/China alliance(s).

https://www.economist.com/briefing/...rmined-that-china-should-not-displace-america

 

[MTF]

It’s trying to show that you are the smartest guy in the room (or rather 2nd smartest after Chomsky) while spouting counter- intuitive “wisdom“ from the safety of a Western liberal democracy. The vast majority know fouth-fifths of feck all about Russia or the Soviet Union (and don’t speak a word of Russian). That is the only explanation I can proffer for why they would seek to compare irritating, trashy and (yes) corrosive media in the West to the wall to wall, disorientating disinformation in the East.

Chomsky is the smartest man in every room, even the ones he's never been in. The wisdom of the linguist is unmatched!

Chomsky Interview:

Q: Noam, we are already a month into the war in Ukraine and peace talks have stalled. In fact, Putin is turning up the volume on violence as the West increases military aid to Ukraine. In a previous interview, you compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Is Putin’s strategy then straight out of Hitler’s playbook? Does he want to occupy all of Ukraine? Is he trying to rebuild the Russian empire? Is this why peace negotiations have stalled?

A: There is very little credible information about the negotiations. Some of the information leaking out sounds mildly optimistic. There is good reason to suppose that if the U.S. were to agree to participate seriously, with a constructive program, the possibilities for an end to the horror would be enhanced.

What a constructive program would be, at least in general outline, is no secret. The primary element is commitment to neutrality for Ukraine: no membership in a hostile military alliance, no hosting of weapons aimed at Russia (even those misleadingly called “defensive”), no military maneuvers with hostile military forces.

That would hardly be something new in world affairs, even where nothing formal exists. Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army.

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. There should be moves towards some kind of federal arrangement for Ukraine involving a degree of autonomy for the Donbass region, along the general lines of what remains of Minsk II. Again, that would be nothing new in world affairs. No two cases are identical, and no real example is anywhere near perfect, but federal structures exist in Switzerland and Belgium, among other cases — even the U.S. to an extent. Serious diplomatic efforts might find a solution to this problem, or at least contain the flames.

The Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021 …. was the statement was another purposeful Exercise in poking the bear in the eye. And the flames are real. Estimates are that some 15,000 people have been killed in conflict in this region since 2014.

That leaves Crimea. On Crimea, the West has two choices. One is to recognize that the Russian annexation is simply a fact of life for now, irreversible without actions that would destroy Ukraine and possibly far more. The other is to disregard the highly likely consequences and to strike heroic gestures about how the U.S. “will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea,” as the joint statement proclaims, accompanied by many eloquent pronouncements by others who are willing to consign Ukraine to utter catastrophe while advertising their bravery.

Like it or not, those are the choices.

Does Putin want to “occupy all of Ukraine and rebuild the Russian empire?” His announced goals (mainly neutralization) are quite different, including his statement that it would be madness to try to reconstruct the old Soviet Union, but he might have had something like this in mind. If so, it’s hard to imagine what he and his circle still do. For Russia to occupy Ukraine would make its experience in Afghanistan look like a picnic in the park. By now that’s abundantly clear.

Putin does have the military capacity — and judging by Chechnya and other escapades, the moral capacity — to leave Ukraine in smoldering ruins. That would mean no occupation, no Russian empire and no more Putin.

Our eyes are rightly focused on the mounting horrors of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It would be a mistake, however, to forget that the joint statement is only one of the pleasures that the imperial mind is quietly conjuring up.

A few weeks ago, we discussed President Biden’s National Defense Authorization Act, as little known as the joint statement. This brilliant document — again quoting Michael Klare — calls for “an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank” — meant to encircle China, including Taiwan, “ominously enough.”

We might ask how China feels about the fact that the U.S. Indo-Pacific command is now reported to be planning to enhance the encirclement, doubling its spending in fiscal year 2022, in part to develop “a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.”

For defense, of course, so the Chinese [government has] no reason for concern.


Q: There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis. But what about Ukraine arming civilians to fight against the invaders? Isn’t this morally justified on the same grounds that resistance against the Nazis was morally justified?

A: Just war theory, regrettably, has about as much relevance to the real world as “humanitarian intervention,” “responsibility to protect” or “defending democracy.”

On the surface, it seems a virtual truism that a people in arms have the right to defend themselves against a brutal aggressor. But as always in this sad world, questions arise when we think about it a little.

We have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.
Take the resistance against the Nazis. There could hardly have been a more noble cause.

One can certainly understand and sympathize with the motives of Herschel Grynszpan when he assassinated a German diplomat in 1938; or the British-trained partisans who assassinated the Nazi murderer Reinhard Heydrich in May 1942. And one can admire their courage and passion for justice, without qualification.

That’s not the end, however. The first provided the Nazis with the pretext for the atrocities of Kristallnacht and impelled the Nazi program further toward its hideous outcomes. The second led to the shocking Lidice massacres.

Events have consequences. The innocent suffer, perhaps terribly. Such questions cannot be avoided by people with a moral bone in their bodies. The questions cannot fail to arise when we consider whether and how to arm those courageously resisting murderous aggression.

That’s the least of it. In the present case, we also have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.

It is not encouraging that over a third of Americans favor “taking military action [in Ukraine] even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia,” perhaps inspired by commentators and political leaders who should think twice before doing their Winston Churchill impersonations.

Perhaps ways can be found to provide needed arms to the defenders of Ukraine to repel the aggressors while avoiding dire consequences. But we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is a simple matter, to be settled by bold pronouncements.


Q: Do you anticipate dramatic political developments inside Russia if the war lasts much longer or if Ukrainians resist even after formal battles have ended? After all, Russia’s economy is already under siege and could end up with an economic collapse unparalleled in recent history.


A: I don’t know enough about Russia even to hazard a guess. One person who does know enough at least to “speculate” — and only that, as he reminds us — is Anatol Lieven, whose insights have been a very useful guide all along. He regards “dramatic political developments” as highly unlikely because of the nature of the harsh kleptocracy that Putin has carefully constructed. Among the more optimistic guesses, “the most likely scenario,” Lieven writes, “is a sort of semi-coup, most of which will never become apparent in public, by which Putin and his immediate associates will step down ‘voluntarily’ in return for guarantees of their personal immunity from arrest and their family’s wealth. Who would succeed as president in these circumstances is a totally open question.”

And not necessarily a pleasant question to consider.

https://truthout.org/articles/choms...ng-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/

The man is exhausting. Federalism a-la Belgium, Switzerland or the US(!!!)?. Those states formed federations voluntarily, and the Civil War proves that at least in the US case there is no option for succession. You can't make a federal state out of a separatist region, under threat, and call that stability.

"There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis" -- very neutral question there, well done.

The firm promise of no eastward expansion, again a comment in a meeting that never made any treaties. It's not binding, it's a strawman.

"Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army." -- Mexico doesn't want to join a military alliance with China. Despite all the past conflicts and losses of territory to the US, the Mexican people don't sit around envisioning a greater Mexico and conquering that back. Some of the largest bases, housing a significant portion of the US combat strength (far more than is ever deployed to Europe), are in Texas and southern California, a stone's throw from the Mexican border. Yet you don't see Mexico bitching and moaning about how the US threatens them further.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

It’s trying to show that you are the smartest guy in the room (or rather 2nd smartest after Chomsky) while spouting counter- intuitive “wisdom“ from the safety of a Western liberal democracy. The vast majority know fouth-fifths of feck all about Russia or the Soviet Union (and don’t speak a word of Russian). That is the only explanation I can proffer for why they would seek to compare irritating, trashy and (yes) corrosive media in the West to the wall to wall, disorientating disinformation in the East.

It’s fascinating how a person can be so wrong on pretty much every topic he engages in this thread. Borderline phishing/trolling.

Missed these two posts yesterday. But the trolling has been consistent from a few of you, it's almost impressive (your capacity for ad hominem and zero input regarding the topic, or perhaps you really just don't understand the topic, it's hard to know at this point).

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Chomsky is the smartest man in every room, even the ones he's never been in. The wisdom of the linguist is unmatched!


The man is exhausting. Federalism a-la Belgium, Switzerland or the US(!!!)?. Those states formed federations voluntarily, and the Civil War proves that at least in the US case there is no option for succession. You can't make a federal state out of a separatist region, under threat, and call that stability.

"There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis" -- very neutral question there, well done.

The firm promise of no eastward expansion, again a comment in a meeting that never made any treaties. It's not binding, it's a strawman.

"Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army." -- Mexico doesn't want to join a military alliance with China. Despite all the past conflicts and losses of territory to the US, the Mexican people don't sit around envisioning a greater Mexico and conquering that back. Some of the largest bases, housing a significant portion of the US combat strength (far more than is ever deployed to Europe), are in Texas and southern California, a stone's throw from the Mexican border. Yet you don't see Mexico bitching and moaning about how the US threatens them further.

I was irritated by that interview for a different reason, I thought he moved too far to the centre (Chomsky ten years ago would criticize Chomsky today for playing politics). As for Mexico, the analogy isn't that Mexico does but that it can't (just like Cuba wanted to house missiles but wasn't allowed). Also, tangential, but Mexico is right now literally moaning about the US hegemony regarding their energy market and has moaned relentlessly in the past over US imperialism.

 

[Beans]

Chomsky Interview:

Q: Noam, we are already a month into the war in Ukraine and peace talks have stalled. In fact, Putin is turning up the volume on violence as the West increases military aid to Ukraine. In a previous interview, you compared Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to the Nazi invasion of Poland. Is Putin’s strategy then straight out of Hitler’s playbook? Does he want to occupy all of Ukraine? Is he trying to rebuild the Russian empire? Is this why peace negotiations have stalled?

A: There is very little credible information about the negotiations. Some of the information leaking out sounds mildly optimistic. There is good reason to suppose that if the U.S. were to agree to participate seriously, with a constructive program, the possibilities for an end to the horror would be enhanced.

What a constructive program would be, at least in general outline, is no secret. The primary element is commitment to neutrality for Ukraine: no membership in a hostile military alliance, no hosting of weapons aimed at Russia (even those misleadingly called “defensive”), no military maneuvers with hostile military forces.

That would hardly be something new in world affairs, even where nothing formal exists. Everyone understands that Mexico cannot join a Chinese-run military alliance, emplace Chinese weapons aimed at the U.S. and carry out military maneuvers with the People’s Liberation Army.

In brief, a constructive program would be about the opposite of the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021. This document, which received little notice, forcefully declared that the door for Ukraine to join NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is wide open. It also “finalized a Strategic Defense Framework that creates a foundation for the enhancement of U.S.-Ukraine strategic defense and security cooperation” by providing Ukraine with advanced anti-tank and other weapons along with a “robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.”

The statement was another purposeful exercise in poking the bear in the eye. It is another contribution to a process that NATO (meaning Washington) has been perfecting since Bill Clinton’s 1998 violation of George H.W. Bush’s firm pledge not to expand NATO to the East, a decision that elicited strong warnings from high-level diplomats from George Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, (current CIA Director) William Burns, and many others, and led Defense Secretary William Perry to come close to resigning in protest, joined by a long list of others with eyes open. That’s of course in addition to the aggressive actions that struck directly at Russia’s concerns (Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and lesser crimes), conducted in such a way as to maximize the humiliation.

It doesn’t strain credulity to suspect that that the joint statement was a factor in inducing Putin and the narrowing circle of “hard men” around him to decide to step up their annual mobilization of forces on the Ukrainian border in an effort to gain some attention to their security concerns, in this case on to direct criminal aggression — which, indeed, we can compare with the Nazi invasion of Poland (in combination with Stalin).

Neutralization of Ukraine is the main element of a constructive program, but there is more. There should be moves towards some kind of federal arrangement for Ukraine involving a degree of autonomy for the Donbass region, along the general lines of what remains of Minsk II. Again, that would be nothing new in world affairs. No two cases are identical, and no real example is anywhere near perfect, but federal structures exist in Switzerland and Belgium, among other cases — even the U.S. to an extent. Serious diplomatic efforts might find a solution to this problem, or at least contain the flames.

The Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership signed by the White House on September 1, 2021 …. was the statement was another purposeful Exercise in poking the bear in the eye. And the flames are real. Estimates are that some 15,000 people have been killed in conflict in this region since 2014.

That leaves Crimea. On Crimea, the West has two choices. One is to recognize that the Russian annexation is simply a fact of life for now, irreversible without actions that would destroy Ukraine and possibly far more. The other is to disregard the highly likely consequences and to strike heroic gestures about how the U.S. “will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Crimea,” as the joint statement proclaims, accompanied by many eloquent pronouncements by others who are willing to consign Ukraine to utter catastrophe while advertising their bravery.

Like it or not, those are the choices.

Does Putin want to “occupy all of Ukraine and rebuild the Russian empire?” His announced goals (mainly neutralization) are quite different, including his statement that it would be madness to try to reconstruct the old Soviet Union, but he might have had something like this in mind. If so, it’s hard to imagine what he and his circle still do. For Russia to occupy Ukraine would make its experience in Afghanistan look like a picnic in the park. By now that’s abundantly clear.

Putin does have the military capacity — and judging by Chechnya and other escapades, the moral capacity — to leave Ukraine in smoldering ruins. That would mean no occupation, no Russian empire and no more Putin.

Our eyes are rightly focused on the mounting horrors of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. It would be a mistake, however, to forget that the joint statement is only one of the pleasures that the imperial mind is quietly conjuring up.

A few weeks ago, we discussed President Biden’s National Defense Authorization Act, as little known as the joint statement. This brilliant document — again quoting Michael Klare — calls for “an unbroken chain of U.S.-armed sentinel states — stretching from Japan and South Korea in the northern Pacific to Australia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Singapore in the south and India on China’s eastern flank” — meant to encircle China, including Taiwan, “ominously enough.”

We might ask how China feels about the fact that the U.S. Indo-Pacific command is now reported to be planning to enhance the encirclement, doubling its spending in fiscal year 2022, in part to develop “a network of precision-strike missiles along the so-called first island chain.”

For defense, of course, so the Chinese [government has] no reason for concern.


Q: There is little doubt that Putin’s aggression against Ukraine fails just war theory, and that NATO is also morally responsible for the crisis. But what about Ukraine arming civilians to fight against the invaders? Isn’t this morally justified on the same grounds that resistance against the Nazis was morally justified?

A: Just war theory, regrettably, has about as much relevance to the real world as “humanitarian intervention,” “responsibility to protect” or “defending democracy.”

On the surface, it seems a virtual truism that a people in arms have the right to defend themselves against a brutal aggressor. But as always in this sad world, questions arise when we think about it a little.

We have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.
Take the resistance against the Nazis. There could hardly have been a more noble cause.

One can certainly understand and sympathize with the motives of Herschel Grynszpan when he assassinated a German diplomat in 1938; or the British-trained partisans who assassinated the Nazi murderer Reinhard Heydrich in May 1942. And one can admire their courage and passion for justice, without qualification.

That’s not the end, however. The first provided the Nazis with the pretext for the atrocities of Kristallnacht and impelled the Nazi program further toward its hideous outcomes. The second led to the shocking Lidice massacres.

Events have consequences. The innocent suffer, perhaps terribly. Such questions cannot be avoided by people with a moral bone in their bodies. The questions cannot fail to arise when we consider whether and how to arm those courageously resisting murderous aggression.

That’s the least of it. In the present case, we also have to ask what risks we are willing to take of a nuclear war, which will not only spell the end of Ukraine but far beyond, to the truly unthinkable.

It is not encouraging that over a third of Americans favor “taking military action [in Ukraine] even if it risks a nuclear conflict with Russia,” perhaps inspired by commentators and political leaders who should think twice before doing their Winston Churchill impersonations.

Perhaps ways can be found to provide needed arms to the defenders of Ukraine to repel the aggressors while avoiding dire consequences. But we should not delude ourselves into believing that it is a simple matter, to be settled by bold pronouncements.


Q: Do you anticipate dramatic political developments inside Russia if the war lasts much longer or if Ukrainians resist even after formal battles have ended? After all, Russia’s economy is already under siege and could end up with an economic collapse unparalleled in recent history.


A: I don’t know enough about Russia even to hazard a guess. One person who does know enough at least to “speculate” — and only that, as he reminds us — is Anatol Lieven, whose insights have been a very useful guide all along. He regards “dramatic political developments” as highly unlikely because of the nature of the harsh kleptocracy that Putin has carefully constructed. Among the more optimistic guesses, “the most likely scenario,” Lieven writes, “is a sort of semi-coup, most of which will never become apparent in public, by which Putin and his immediate associates will step down ‘voluntarily’ in return for guarantees of their personal immunity from arrest and their family’s wealth. Who would succeed as president in these circumstances is a totally open question.”

And not necessarily a pleasant question to consider.

https://truthout.org/articles/choms...ng-nuclear-war-rather-than-debating-just-war/

I find it strange that he gives so much weight to these diplomatic comments, one by James Baker about how the US lacks desire to go "once inch eastward".

The actual quote is, “We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany, within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

This isn’t even an offer, it’s statement of understanding of the position of another, he’s only saying you want this, not that we’re offering it.

Here's Baker saying it was a comment made early in the negotiations, which was before discussions included a unified Germany entering NATO, that Russia agreed to, demonstrating that comment wasn't for them some kind of red line.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/09/us/politics/russia-ukraine-james-baker.html

Here's another expert saying it was an idea floated once early on and dropped.

"But I talked to Mary Sarotte. She's a historian who's written a book about the negotiations over all this called "Not One Inch." And she says this not one inch thing comes from this very early conversation in 1990 between then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. Baker floats this idea of letting Germany reunify in exchange for NATO moving not one inch eastward. Gorbachev's like, OK; I'll think about it.

SHAPIRO: So he floated the idea, and then what happened?

SULLIVAN: So what happens next is that Baker goes back to Washington where President George H.W. Bush is like, absolutely not. And so the Americans drop it. It never shows up on the bargaining table."

https://www.npr.org/2022/02/07/1078...nsion-eastward-thats-at-the-heart-of-conflict

Searching Google you see papers referring to it as a "promise" which seems ridiculous to me. Are Russians amateurs who don't realize something this supposedly important needs to be in the treaty?

Meanwhile, Russia actually did violate the Budapest Memorandum. I think Chomsky has fallen for a trick here, which is fair because this claim is all over the legitimate media.

Here's DW weighing in too.

 

[MTF]

Searching Google you see papers referring to it as a "promise" which seems ridiculous to me. Are Russians amateurs who don't realize something this supposedly important needs to be in the treaty?

I bet you know the answer, but just to reinforce it is absolutely 'no'. The Russian govt has a long tradition in diplomacy. These are the same people (or understudies of) that banged out several arms control treaties with the US, which involve detailed language, verification, ongoing engagement, etc. They absolutely 100% understand that it was never even an unofficial commitment by the US. They say it just to suit their narrative and casus belli.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Here's Baker saying it was a comment made early in the negotiations, which was before discussions included a unified Germany entering NATO, that Russia agreed to, demonstrating that comment was for them some kind of red line.

The elephant in the various meeting rooms was, of course, Germany. Baker’s notes from the meetings with Shevardnadze indicate that they discussed the 2 + 4 framework as a better idea than trying to resurrect occupation-style four-power control, which the “Germans won’t buy.” They also discussed the U.S. desire for a united Germany to remain in NATO.

In his handwritten notes from this discussion, Baker put stars and an exclamation point next to one of his key statements: “End result: Unified Ger. anchored in a *changed (polit.) NATO—*whose juris. would not move *eastward!”. Baker repeated this comment to Gorbachev on February 9 and speculated that a Germany in NATO would be a safer proposition than a united country outside of the alliance. The Soviet leader replied that any expansion of the “zone of NATO” was not acceptable. Baker responded, according to Gorbachev, “we agree with that.” This statement was extremely significant to Gorbachev; indeed, he later recalled it as the moment that “cleared the way for a compromise” on Germany. Based on it, he would make a big concession to Kohl the next day at the third bilateral (to be described shortly)....

Gorbachev, emerging from a political culture in which the word of a leader overruled the law, hoping that he could still find a way to disband both military alliances entirely, and hesitating to agree to his end of the bargain (a unified Germany), did not try to resolve the matter there. In the future, he would therefore leave the Soviet Union’s successors empty handed when they protested against NATO expansion....

Not One Inch Eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the Origin of Russian Resentment toward NATO Enlargement in February 1990 (Sarotte 2010).

The promise was definitely made. You can blame Gorbachev for not getting it in writing, but it appeared in internal NATO memorandums as early as 1994 and the (post-)Soviets protested almost immediately.

 

[PedroMendez]

The promise was definitely made. You can blame Gorbachev for not getting it in writing, but it appeared in internal NATO memorandums as early as 1994 and the (post-)Soviets protested almost immediately.

can you provide any solid evidence for that, preferable sources, that related to primary material?

Mark Kramer, Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson; NATO Enlargement—Was There a Promise?. International Security 2017; 42 (1): 186–192:
Kramer argues strongly against that such a promise existed.
Shifrinson argues that no formal promise was made, but it was clearly implicated.

A Broken promise: What the West really told Moscow about NATO expansion ME Sarotte - Foreign Aff., 2014
Sarotte argues, that there was nothing like a promise.

I don't have a strong view one way or the other and don't understand how anyone can make definitive claims about this. Even the academic literature seems to be mostly relying either on an strictly legalistic point of view (=> no documents = no promises) or on selective quote-farming (which seems to be possible in both ways, because there is so much to pick from). My personal view is, that nobody knows (including current politicians) for sure. We are talking essentially about hearsay at this point in time.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

can you provide any solid evidence for that, preferable sources, that related to primary material?

Mark Kramer, Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson; NATO Enlargement—Was There a Promise?. International Security 2017; 42 (1): 186–192:
Kramer argues strongly against that such a promise existed.
Shifrinson argues that no formal promise was made, but it was clearly implicated.

A Broken promise: What the West really told Moscow about NATO expansion ME Sarotte - Foreign Aff., 2014
Sarotte argues, that there was nothing like a promise.

I don't have a strong view one way or the other and don't understand how anyone can make definitive claims about this. Even the academic literature seems to be mostly relying either on an strictly legalistic point of view (=> no documents = no promises) or on selective quote-farming (which seems to be possible in both ways, because there is so much to pick from). My personal view is, that nobody knows (including current politicians) for sure. We are talking essentially about hearsay at this point in time.

Yeah, the article I cited (incompletely) contains sections from internal memos, diaries, official documentation, and so on. The article itself reflects the ambiguity of the bold ("implicated") as does Baker's own diary (see above), but Sarotte maintains that a "promise" was made (but that it remains in "the eye of the beholder"). Clearly, Gorbachev thought he had been given a promise (that's reflected in Gorbachev's statements as well as Baker's diary) but Sarotte then tries to see the American perspective and says Baker's promise/agreement was speculative whereas Gorbachev's understanding was literal. Again, from the same source:

In his handwritten notes from this discussion, Baker put stars and an exclamation point next to one of his key statements: “End result: Unified Ger. anchored in a *changed (polit.) NATO—*whose juris. would not move *eastward!”. Baker repeated this comment to Gorbachev on February 9 and speculated that a Germany in NATO would be a safer proposition than a united country outside of the alliance. The Soviet leader replied that any expansion of the “zone of NATO” was not acceptable. Baker responded, according to Gorbachev, “we agree with that.” This statement was extremely significant to Gorbachev; indeed, he later recalled it as the moment that “cleared the way for a compromise” on Germany. Based on it, he would make a big concession to Kohl the next day at the third bilateral (to be described shortly)....

That's really the key part around which the whole controversy hinges. You can read it more than one way, but that the Soviets thought they had a literal agreement ("understanding") is obvious, as Sarotte notes, in that Gorbachev made a significant concession based on Baker's "we agree [with no expansion of NATO beyond the east]"). Article doi is here. Sarotte's conclusion is that each side has legitimate claims, which basically leaves it open to the ambiguity you cite and which is why the argument continues. From a functional point of view, I'd say Gorbachev acted on the agreement/understanding prematurely and then never received anything which codified it in treaty form which left the Americans free to discount the entire exchange (which they have, except in the writings which warn against NATO expansion where they don't mention the agreement but tacitly recognize it as the underlying reason why NATO expansion will cause difficulties).

Thanks for the above reference, not familiar with Shifrinson/Kramer but will read it.


(Sarotte, Mary Elise. "Not one inch eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the origin of Russian resentment toward NATO enlargement in February 1990." Diplomatic History 34.1 (2010): 119-140).

 

[2cents]

Yeah, the article I cited (incompletely) contains sections from internal memos, diaries, official documentation, and so on. The article itself reflects the ambiguity of the bold ("implicated") as does Baker's own diary (see above), but Sarotte maintains that a "promise" was made (but that it remains in "the eye of the beholder"). Clearly, Gorbachev thought he had been given a promise (that's reflected in Gorbachev's statements as well as Baker's diary) but Sarotte then tries to see the American perspective and says Baker's promise/agreement was speculative whereas Gorbachev's understanding was literal. Again, from the same source:



That's really the key part around which the whole controversy hinges. You can read it more than one way, but that the Soviets thought they had a literal agreement ("understanding") is obvious, as Sarotte notes, in that Gorbachev made a significant concession based on Baker's "we agree [with no expansion of NATO beyond the east]"). Article doi is here. Sarotte's conclusion is that each side has legitimate claims, which basically leaves it open to the ambiguity you cite and which is why the argument continues. From a functional point of view, I'd say Gorbachev acted on the agreement/understanding prematurely and then never received anything which codified it in treaty form which left the Americans free to discount the entire exchange (which they have, except in the writings which warn against NATO expansion where they don't mention the agreement but tacitly recognize it as the underlying reason why NATO expansion will cause difficulties).

Thanks for the above reference, not familiar with Shifrinson/Kramer but will read it.


(Sarotte, Mary Elise. "Not one inch eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the origin of Russian resentment toward NATO enlargement in February 1990." Diplomatic History 34.1 (2010): 119-140).

So assuming a ‘promise’ was made, it was made to Gorbachev in his capacity as leader of the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union then ceased to exist shortly after, and several of its successor states then went on to apply for NATO membership, over the reservations and objections of another one of its successor states.

Or was the promise reiterated to Moscow following independence?

 

[PedroMendez]

Yeah, the article I cited (incompletely) contains sections from internal memos, diaries, official documentation, and so on. The article itself reflects the ambiguity of the bold ("implicated") as does Baker's own diary (see above), but Sarotte maintains that a "promise" was made (but that it remains in "the eye of the beholder"). Clearly, Gorbachev thought he had been given a promise (that's reflected in Gorbachev's statements as well as Baker's diary) but Sarotte then tries to see the American perspective and says Baker's promise/agreement was speculative whereas Gorbachev's understanding was literal. Again, from the same source:



That's really the key part around which the whole controversy hinges. You can read it more than one way, but that the Soviets thought they had a literal agreement ("understanding") is obvious, as Sarotte notes, in that Gorbachev made a significant concession based on Baker's "we agree [with no expansion of NATO beyond the east]"). Article doi is here. Sarotte's conclusion is that each side has legitimate claims, which basically leaves it open to the ambiguity you cite and which is why the argument continues. From a functional point of view, I'd say Gorbachev acted on the agreement/understanding prematurely and then never received anything which codified it in treaty form which left the Americans free to discount the entire exchange (which they have, except in the writings which warn against NATO expansion where they don't mention the agreement but tacitly recognize it as the underlying reason why NATO expansion will cause difficulties).

Thanks for the above reference, not familiar with Shifrinson/Kramer but will read it.


(Sarotte, Mary Elise. "Not one inch eastward? Bush, Baker, Kohl, Genscher, Gorbachev, and the origin of Russian resentment toward NATO enlargement in February 1990." Diplomatic History 34.1 (2010): 119-140).

I understand Sarotte's conclusion slightly differently. I think its worth reading for anyone interested in it. Anyone, who can't access it, can use sci hub and add the DOI (10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00835.x).
To quote the ending of her article:

For a moment in February 1990, the Soviet Union could have struck a deal with the United States, but it did not. Obviously any agreement among the Americans, West Germans, and Russians would have needed alliance approval, but in the political climate of 1990 it would have been possible to secure it. Even a written press release would have helped the Soviet cause. But Gorbachev did not secure one, and the window closed. Germany united and NATO began to move eastward.

At least in my opinion the article outlines why it would be crazy to base ones foreign policy on an informal statement in a highly dynamic situation, which didn't have the backing of the US president and would carry no weight once the administration changes.

 

[Pintu]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Beans]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Should be in the hypernormalization thread!

Hail Ronald

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

Should be in the hypernormalization thread!

Hail Ronald

It is, courtesy of @Sweet Square

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Beans]

I bet you know the answer, but just to reinforce it is absolutely 'no'. The Russian govt has a long tradition in diplomacy. These are the same people (or understudies of) that banged out several arms control treaties with the US, which involve detailed language, verification, ongoing engagement, etc. They absolutely 100% understand that it was never even an unofficial commitment by the US. They say it just to suit their narrative and casus belli.

That's exactly what I think it is, an excuse by a dictator.

Though I'd be happy to learn more about all this. It does seem odd that the USSR didn't put it in the treaty if the US made sounds of willingness. There's also the fact that the USSR doesn't exist anymore so those agreements are void. Or were agreements with the USSR transferred to Russia somehow?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

So assuming a ‘promise’ was made, it was made to Gorbachev in his capacity as leader of the Soviet Union? The Soviet Union then ceased to exist shortly after, and several of its successor states then went on to apply for NATO membership, over the reservations and objections of another one of its successor states.

Or was the promise reiterated to Moscow following independence?

The promise became increasingly contentious during that interregnum period (the Yeltsin years) when Russia was seeking to be admitted within a common security framework, advancing slightly along the NATO track before being derailed. Sarotte details it briefly. The promise was made in the context of the post-Soviet Union (its disintegration) as Germany was being reunified as a direct consequence of the negotiations within which the promise was made, with the understanding at that time that other Soviet republics would quickly follow (90-91).

I understand Sarotte's conclusion slightly differently. I think its worth reading for anyone interested in it. Anyone, who can't access it, can use sci hub and add the DOI (10.1111/j.1467-7709.2009.00835.x).
To quote the ending of her article:



At least in my opinion the article outlines why it would be crazy to base ones foreign policy on an informal statement in a highly dynamic situation, which didn't have the backing of the US president and would carry no weight once the administration changes.

I think that Baker was speaking on behalf of the US president, or at least I'd imagine that was what Gorbachev inferred as Baker was operating in his governmental capacity. But you can make the argument that Gorbachev was to blame for not getting the agreement in writing, which many on the left have frequently made.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Australia must be willing to invade the Solomon Islands and topple its government if that’s what is necessary to stop a proposed security pact between China and the Pacific nation going ahead, one commentator has argued.

David Llewellyn-Smith, founding publisher of MacroBusiness and former owner of leading Asia Pacific foreign affairs journal The Diplomat, says this is “Australia’s Cuban missile crisis” and chillingly warns a Chinese naval base in the Solomons would be “the effective end of our sovereignty and democracy”.

In the 1962 crisis, the world came to the brink of Armageddon when the Soviet Union deployed nuclear missiles to Cuba on America’s southern doorstep.

Prompting the warning is a leaked draft “framework agreement” between China and the Solomon Islands, which surfaced online on Thursday.

Under the agreement, which has sent shockwaves through Canberra, China would gain a port for its navy less than 2000 kilometres from Australia’s shoreline.

“China will have parked an enormous stationary aircraft carrier within direct striking distance of every eastern Australian city,” Llewellyn-Smith wrote in a provocative piece on Friday.

“There is no way that Australia can allow this deal to proceed. If it must, the nation should invade and capture Guadalcanal such that we engineer regime change in Honiara. There are other soft power levers to pull first and we should pull them forcefully. But we should also immediately begin amassing an amphibious invasion force to add pressure.”

He added that this was the “14 conditions to end Australian democracy, weaponised”.

In 2020, Beijing released a list of 14 grievances that it claimed were “poisoning bilateral relations” with Australia – among them the decision to ban Huawei from the rollout of the 5G network, foreign interference laws, and calling for an inquiry into the origins of Covid-19.

“Any time that Beijing disagrees with Canberra, it will open the hatches on its Solomon-based cruise missiles and ask us to reconsider,” Llewellyn-Smith wrote.

“This will include no disagreement with Beijing over key features of the silent invasion like a cowed media, as well increased migration and bribery without accountability, eventually capturing enough federal seats that Beijing controls elections.”

Speaking to news.com.au, Llewellyn-Smith said he “meant every word”.

“If we don’t respond to this – it has to be us and Washington – then mate, it’s game over,” he said.

“China will have freedom of the seas with its navy throughout the South Pacific. Gunboat diplomacy will be our new reality. They will literally have cruise missile boats sitting there, they might have hypersonic missiles that can reach Brisbane in – how long, 15 minutes? I don’t know, but it won’t be very long. That just completely changes your political relationship with China. Are we going to defend ourselves with our nuclear subs in 50 years?”

He said the Solomons base “has to be a red line China is not allowed to cross” and Australia must “throw everything at this”, including stopping iron ore exports if the deal goes ahead.


“You’ve got to put everything into drawing that line, no matter what it takes,” he said. “Canberra and Washington simply have to throw the politics out and just say, ‘No, this is not happening.’ I’m not a warmonger but this is end-of-the-world stuff, this is crazy.”

He argued that while the world has been distracted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and keeping a wary eye on a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, China has “just sort of leapfrogged Taiwan”.

“The danger of them taking Taiwan was that it would begin this island-jumping,” he said. “They’ve just leapfrogged the whole lot. It’s incredibly bold. It’s a huge thumb in the eye.”

Security experts had already sounded the alarm this week that Australia was defenceless against Chinese ballistic missiles fired from artificial island bases in the South China Sea, some 3500 kilometres away.

“The DF-26 missile is capable of reaching targets about 5000 kilometres away,” Dr Malcolm Davis from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) told The Daily Mail.

“So that could certainly cover everything in northern Australia down to Pine Gap near Alice Springs where a CIA-run American-Australian intelligence base is located.”

ASPI director of defence, strategy and national security Michael Shoebridge said the draft agreement “may well be some kind of ambit claim from Beijing”.

“But not taking it as a statement of intent would be plain dumb, because it is consistent with Communist Party goals and directions, if not in the Solomons then somewhere else in the South Pacific,” he told news.com.au on Friday.

“So clear-eyed analysis and engagement instead of hysteria is the right way to behave here.”

Mr Shoebridge said while it was understandable for South Pacific nations to welcome economic and even political competition brought by China, the draft agreement “brings something very different – military competition”, into the region.

“And it is not in the interests of South Pacific populations to have the South Pacific become a place of actual military competition, tension and conflict,” he said.

“Even if some leaders don’t want to act on this fact, other voices have to be listened to and noticed. Every member state of the Pacific Island Forum has its direct security tied to this decision and I have no doubt they understand at least as well as Canberra does. Within the Solomon Islands, no doubt inside the current government itself, there will be strong voices against the agreement as drafted – or any agreement involving Chinese paramilitary or military presence in the Solomons.”

He said Australia’s job was to “speak frankly” and “show we are part of the Pacific family and that we are as deeply against our region becoming a place of actual military tension as any other of our Pacific partners”.

“We don’t want the stand off between the PLA Navy ship that used military grade lasers against an Australian Air Force P-8 aircraft just a few weeks ago to be the type of frequent military tensions in the South Pacific that would be enabled by PLA routine presence operating out of the Solomon Islands,” he said.

“The single biggest factor that can either bring this nasty reality into being or prevent it is whether the Chinese military is given permission by any government in our region to establish places to base or operate from. Any government that helps create this dystopian, dangerous future will be doing its own people and the region enormous damage.”


Speaking on Nine’s Today show on Friday, Defence Minister Peter Dutton denied the Morrison Government had “dropped the ball” in the Pacific.

“Not at all,” he said.

“If you look at the amount of support that we have provided into the Pacific, the work we’ve done in Tonga, the work we continue to do in PNG and every other nation – I’m meeting with my New Zealand counterpart this afternoon – it’s a standing agenda item for all of us to be able to realistic about China’s footprint, their exertion, their pressure and the way in which they conduct their business.”

Mr Dutton said he didn’t believe China’s ambitions in the Pacific were “consistent with the values that we share with the Solomon Islands and with Tonga, and other countries”.

“There’s aid … and many ways we’ll work very closely together,” he said.

“We’ll continue to do that. We want peace and stability in our region. We don’t want pressure and exertion from China to continue to roll out in the region. We have a fantastic relationship with the Solomon Islands and we’re there at the request of the government of the Solomon Islands at the moment.”

He noted Australia had 50 people on the ground in the Solomons who would stay there in the run-up to 2023.

“There’s a lot more we can do for them,” Mr Dutton said. “As part of the Pacific family, it is obvious we want to work together and we want to resolve any issues within that family, within our region. And we would be concerned clearly about any military base being established and we would express that to the Solomon Islands’ government.”


But Llewellyn-Smith said Mr Dutton’s comments were “entirely beside the point”.

“He’s talking about yesterday, not today,” he said.

“This is no longer a soft power competition, this is hard power, strategic competition. It’s all well and good to try to bribe the Pacific Islands to keep them within our sphere of influence – China’s doing the same, that’s harmless enough. But this is a massive step to hard power force projection on the Australian coast.”

Labor’s Chris Bowen told ABC Radio’s RN Breakfast on Friday the opposition was “deeply” concerned about the leaked documents.

“This would be a very significant and negative development for Australia’s geopolitical interests in our region,” the shadow minister for climate change and energy said. “It would frankly represent a failure of the Pacific step up if these reports were true – we should be the partner of choice on all matters that would be in our view the regions best interest.”

Earlier, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said Australia “would be concerned by any actions that destabilise the security of our region”.

“Pacific Island nations have the right to make sovereign decisions,” a spokeswoman said in a statement. “Australia’s co-operation with our Pacific family is focused on the economic prosperity, security and development of our region. This co-operation is always transparent and open, and aligned to the priorities and interests of our Pacific partners.”

The United States and Australia have long been concerned about the potential for China to build a naval base in the South Pacific, allowing its navy to project power far beyond its borders.


US President Joe Biden at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Picture: Thomas Coex/AFP
Massey University of New Zealand security expert Anna Powles told AFP the draft agreement was “broad in scope” and contained “several ambiguous and potentially geopolitically ambitious provisions”.

It would allow armed Chinese police and the military to deploy at the Solomon Islands’ request, to maintain “social order”. The “forces of China” would also be allowed to protect “the safety of Chinese personnel” and “major projects in the Solomon Islands”.

Crucially, Dr Powles said, the draft agreement also showed “China is seeking logistical supply capabilities and material assets located in the Solomon Islands to support ship visits”.

The draft security cooperation agreement between China and Solomon Islands has been linked on social media and raises a lot of questions (and concerns). (photos of agreement in this and below tweet) 1/6 pic.twitter.com/nnpnJJQC7r
— Dr Anna Powles (@AnnaPowles) March 24, 2022

ANU National Security College head Rory Medcalf said that, assuming the document was accurate, “this is a very serious shift”.

“Because if you read the document, it literally is an open door to a Chinese military presence in the Solomon Islands with authorisation to use force,” he told The Australian. “There are no caveats about levels of force or authorisation to use force. So there is a grey zone there, and I would read that grey zone as pretty damn dangerous.”

The deal would in some respects echo a similar agreement the Solomon Islands already has with Australia.

Karen Galokale, permanent secretary for the Ministry of Police, National Security and Correctional Services in the Solomon Islands, told Reuters on Thursday that a co-operation agreement signed between the Solomon Islands and China covered policing, and confirmed a wider agreement was being discussed.

“Any other arrangement on broad security would be just the same as the Australian agreement,” she said. “It will have to go to Cabinet.”

The nation of 800,000 has been wracked by political and social unrest, and many of its people live in poverty.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news...l/news-story/d53d32a38e000a45a736df4fc7f8f38f

Australia worried about China installing a naval base in the Solomon Islands after a strategic partnership document between the two nations was leaked (in draft form). Do the Solomon Islands have agency and will they be allowed to join the Chinese military bloc? Might be worth following if you really believe that the Ukrainian situation is about "agency" and every country being allowed to do what it wants without fear of retaliation from larger powers on their doorstep. In this scenario, the Solomon Islands are potentially Ukraine.

For context:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lomon-islands-to-base-warships-in-the-pacific
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-could-impact-stability-in-the-whole-pacific

The Solomon Islands have used Australian police forces to put down riots in the past, but have, of late, favoured Chinese security. China has been exporting policing apparatus as well as weaponry. The SI recognized China (as the "only" or "one" China) in 2019 by switching their alliegiance from Taiwan. Overall, AUKUS (Australia/United States/United Kingdom) is concerned about the inevitable growth of the Chinese military bloc in the South Pacific). This is most notable in China's fortificaiton of various islands (South China Sea) which is highly contested and obvious concerns over the eventual fate of Taiwan.

 

[hasanejaz88]

Maybe ISIS and Hamas should give this a shot as well

Trying to talk about a Muslim population being persecuted and bring up ISIS for no reason, not racist at all

 

[africanspur]

I can only presume that those who think propaganda is more pervasive or effective in Western countries than autocracies has never actually lived in an autocratic country, nor actually engaged with the population of said countries.

 

[Rajma]

I can only presume that those who think propaganda is more pervasive or effective in Western countries than autocracies has never actually lived in an autocratic country, nor actually engaged with the population of said countries.

What’s funny is this guy apparently has no clue how Russian propaganda has worked all these years and what methods it used, the majority in Russia don’t even realize they live in the autocracy. I have had Russian state TV channels running in the background for most of my life and I have seen first-hand the tactics and how it has impacted the thinking of my parents/grandparents (and that’s while living in the actual democratic EU state). I suggest you guys to not waste your time with this troll.

 

[VorZakone]

Australia must be willing to invade the Solomon Islands and topple its government if that’s what is necessary to stop a proposed security pact between China and the Pacific nation going ahead, one commentator has argued.



Australia worried about China installing a naval base in the Solomon Islands after a strategic partnership document between the two nations was leaked (in draft form). Do the Solomon Islands have agency and will they be allowed to join the Chinese military bloc? Might be worth following if you really believe that the Ukrainian situation is about "agency" and every country being allowed to do what it wants without fear of retaliation from larger powers on their doorstep. In this scenario, the Solomon Islands are potentially Ukraine.

For context:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...lomon-islands-to-base-warships-in-the-pacific
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...s-could-impact-stability-in-the-whole-pacific

The Solomon Islands have used Australian police forces to put down riots in the past, but have, of late, favoured Chinese security. China has been exporting policing apparatus as well as weaponry. The SI recognized China (as the "only" or "one" China) in 2019 by switching their alliegiance from Taiwan. Overall, AUKUS (Australia/United States/United Kingdom) is concerned about the inevitable growth of the Chinese military bloc in the South Pacific). This is most notable in China's fortificaiton of various islands (South China Sea) which is highly contested and obvious concerns over the eventual fate of Taiwan.

Interesting to see what comes out of it. I'd be surprised if Australia would take military action though, can't see it happening.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I can only presume that those who think propaganda is more pervasive or effective in Western countries than autocracies has never actually lived in an autocratic country, nor actually engaged with the population of said countries.

Have you lived in a totalitarian country? There's maybe one or two on the planet and Russia doesn't count (North Korea is the kind of bar that qualifies).

What’s funny is this guy apparently has no clue how Russian propaganda has worked all these years and what methods it used, the majority in Russia don’t even realize they live in the autocracy. I have had Russian state TV channels running in the background for most of my life and I have seen first-hand the tactics and how it has impacted the thinking of my parents/grandparents (and that’s while living in the actual democratic EU state). I suggest you guys to not waste your time with this troll.

Russia isn't totalitarian, it's authoritarian. I'd link you to various studies that argue the point convincingly, but I've garnered by now that you either can't or won't read at length. Just think of the Qanon people who fall down rabbitholes though, to understand how strong propaganda can be in democracies (or things like "Freedom Fries").

Interesting to see what comes out of it. I'd be surprised if Australia would take military action though, can't see it happening.

Not Australia by themselves but maybe some AUKUS inspired incarnation.

 

[Carolina Red]

Have you lived in a totalitarian country?

Pretty sure he’s posted multiple times that he’s spent a good bit of his life having to live under oppressive regimes.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Pretty sure he’s posted multiple times that he’s spent a good bit of his life having to live under oppressive regimes.

Which is fair enough, but without being pedantic there's a massive distinction between oppressive regime and totalitarian regime. The bar isn't the same. Half the world could qualify for the first and maybe four or five states for the second.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_totalitarian_regimes

That's actually a good list. Eritrea, North Korea, and Turkmenistan are the three generallly accepted (Afghanistan might also be a good example under the Taliban). During the Soviet era, there were far more.

 

[Carolina Red]

Which is fair enough, but without being pedantic there's a massive distinction between oppressive regime and totalitarian regime. The bar isn't the same. Half the world could qualify for the first and maybe four or five states for the second.

Not to be pedantic, but he said autocratic and you said totalitarian. Those are not the same either.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Not to be pedantic, but he said autocratic and you said totalitarian. Those are not the same either.

If he means autocracy, then he hasn't read the thread because I was talking about totalitarianism. Russia is an autocracy and their propaganda is good these days, Putin actually learned quite a lot from the West in terms of how he speaks and presents himself but with the added threat of being a dictator.

(Look at his Third Reich style rally. What makes it "western" is the Bush/Obama style apparel, what makes it autocratic is everything else; he also uses a Trumpian style scatter-gun approach when talking about certain topics which are designed to get traction in external audiences: J.K. Rowling was straight out of Trump's manual).

 

[Carolina Red]

If he means autocracy, then he hasn't read the thread because I was talking about totalitarianism. Russia is an autocracy and their propaganda is good these days, Putin actually learned quite a lot from the West in terms of how he speaks and presents himself but with the added threat of being a dictator.

You’ve posted an article about propaganda in “the West” with this justification:

Interesting chapter for any with time to read it and bears directly on the current situation insofar as you see people's heightened hysteria regarding "Russian propaganda".

And you’ve consistently drawn the comparison regarding propaganda between the “west” and the likes of Russia. You did it in the Ukraine War thread as well:

“The collectivizing narratives (and narrative strategies) pursued by the US and other western governments gives me as much cause for alarm, primarily because despite what people think, the West is in actuality far better at propaganda than the Russians or the Chinese. The axiom is that the freer the society the more heavily propagandized its people.”

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

You’ve posted an article about propaganda in “the West” with this justification:


And you’ve consistently drawn the comparison regarding propaganda between the “west” and the likes of Russia. You did it in the Ukraine War thread as well:

“The collectivizing narratives (and narrative strategies) pursued by the US and other western governments gives me as much cause for alarm, primarily because despite what people think, the West is in actuality far better at propaganda than the Russians or the Chinese. The axiom is that the freer the society the more heavily propagandized its people.”

Yes, to the extent that many in the west don't even perceive the propagandistic value behind their information. This has been well understood for a century, when propaganda underwent its rebranding in the form of "public relations". The old adage that people in totalitarian societies are less likely to believe their government's propaganda (political correctness versus reality in the USSR) holds true.

Historians and sociologists are well-placed to provide media literacy classes and they should be on every syllabus.

Useful links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Lippmann
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

That's the context which makes it clear that totalitarianism was the target, there's one or two more posts where I reference "totalitarian" explicitly on the previous page.

 

[Carolina Red]

That's the context which makes it clear that totalitarianism was the target, there's one or two more posts where I reference "totalitarian" explicitly on the previous page.

I know you do, after also using a non-totalitarian country every time you’ve spoken about a specific place. Likely leading to africanspur talking about autocracy when referencing your post.