Geopolitics

[Revan]

They will likely get some concessions on terming PKK militias as terrorists and an end to arms embargo and that will likely be it. F-35s are contingent on the Turks getting rid of their S-400, now more than ever. Now way the US will back down on this and they know it well enough.



That's some sort of parallel reality from Turkish politicians again. There wasn't a country in Europe as enthusiastic as Greece about Turkey's potential ascension to the EU. Pretty much all territorial disputes would be resolved by Turkey becoming a co-signatory to the UNCLOS (* United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) which the EU is a signatory to as an institution. Greek government was also pro-Annan plan for the unification of Cyprus, in the 2004 referendum on the island. Greece did block N.Macedonian entry into NATO until the naming dispute was resolved, but it never blocked Turkey. In fact, the opposite...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accession_of_Turkey_to_the_European_Union#Greece

The only real reason Turkey regrets letting Greece back into NATO is because they are protected by article 5. They still have an active casus belli threat against Greece, a fellow NATO member, if they unilaterally increase their territorial waters to 12nm as mandated by UNCLOS. While simultaneously rejecting an open offer since 1976 to settle the dispute at the ICJ . But sure, it's Greece that's been the problem.

To be totally fair, I think that Turkey has a point in their sea dispute with Greece. Greece owns sea territory which is a few miles away from Turkey and hundreds of miles from Greece, cause some mostly not habituated micro islands were given to Greece by British/France while Turkey was down.

I mean, just look at this ridiculous map of the sea:

 

[nimic]

To be totally fair, I think that Turkey has a point in their sea dispute with Greece. Greece owns sea territory which is a few miles away from Turkey and hundreds of miles from Greece, cause some mostly not habituated micro islands were given to Greece by British/France while Turkey was down.

That's a bit misleading, no? Those islands were, as far as I know, historically Greek. There are also settled ones, and they're settled by Greeks, right? In any case, Turkey didn't exist when those islands were "given", if we're talking aftermath of WW1.

 

[Revan]

That's a bit misleading, no? Those islands were, as far as I know, historically Greek. There are also settled ones, and they're settled by Greeks, right? In any case, Turkey didn't exist when those islands were "given", if we're talking aftermath of WW1.

Some of them were given after WW2, and some of them were taken near the end of WW1. In all cases, with West's help, and given to Greece.

I know that the West is really good at making treaties that favor them, playing international law when it favors them, otherwise not, and softly humiliating the other countries. The problem is that when those countries become a bit stronger, then you have conflicts which probably are not nice. In Turkey's case, we are talking about arguably the second strongest infantry in NATO, the fourth overall strongest military in the Alliance, second highest population, and by 2050, the country with the third/fourth/fifth highest GDP in the alliance. Who also happens to be in a pretty strategic position, and who as Finland and Sweden will find out soon, happens to have veto power.

Just a few months ago the concept of a Russia-Turkey alliance in that region did not look great, and Turkey was essentially pushed into it. Sure, Russia currently seems to be a paper tiger, but I do not think that leaving Russia and Turkey to China is particularly smart for the West.

 

[frostbite]

To be totally fair, I think that Turkey has a point in their sea dispute with Greece. Greece owns sea territory which is a few miles away from Turkey and hundreds of miles from Greece, cause some mostly not habituated micro islands were given to Greece by British/France while Turkey was down.

I mean, just look at this ridiculous map of the sea:

The islands are also Greek territory, so it is not "hundreds of miles from Greece"! The islands are Greece, too.

(And the islands weren't "given to Greece", they were Greek islands that were occupied by other countries. )

 

[frostbite]

Some of them were given after WW2, and some of them were taken near the end of WW1. In all cases, with West's help, and given to Greece.

I know that the West is really good at making treaties that favor them, playing international law when it favors them, otherwise not, and softly humiliating the other countries. The problem is that when those countries become a bit stronger, then you have conflicts which probably are not nice. In Turkey's case, we are talking about arguably the second strongest infantry in NATO, the fourth overall strongest military in the Alliance, second highest population, and by 2050, the country with the third/fourth/fifth highest GDP in the alliance. Who also happens to be in a pretty strategic position, and who as Finland and Sweden will find out soon, happens to have veto power.

Just a few months ago the concept of a Russia-Turkey alliance in that region did not look great, and Turkey was essentially pushed into it. Sure, Russia currently seems to be a paper tiger, but I do not think that leaving Russia and Turkey to China is particularly smart for the West.

Greece was in the same alliance with England both in WW1 and WW2. Greece was a participant in both World Wars and had many deaths in both wars.

Turkey has a dictatorship. It is not the West that "leaves Turkey". Turkey has already decided it does not want the Western values.

 

[frostbite]

To be totally fair, I think that Turkey has a point in their sea dispute with Greece. Greece owns sea territory which is a few miles away from Turkey and hundreds of miles from Greece, cause some mostly not habituated micro islands were given to Greece by British/France while Turkey was down.

I mean, just look at this ridiculous map of the sea:

This map is fake. Where did you take it from? Do you see the islands inside the red color? These are Greek islands! It is Greek territory, it should not be red.

Yes, it is true that Turkey does not have much sea. So what? The islands and the surrounding sea is Greek territory, that's what international law says.

 

[Revan]

Greece was in the same alliance with England both in WW1 and WW2. Greece was a participant in both World Wars and had many deaths in both wars.

And then got a few unimportant islands on their own, but that give them thousands of square miles of sea near Turkey. What did they think they would happen when Turkey gets stronger?

Turkey has a dictatorship. It is not the West that "leaves Turkey". Turkey has already decided it does not want the Western values.

Greece actually had a military junta not longer than just 50 years ago, and among other things, are to be blamed for the current Cypriot problem. Were there calls for it to be removed from NATO cause they do not want Western values.

In any case, the humiliation of Turkey and them getting blocked from EU, as it is France's unconditional support for Greece is mostly about religion and has feck all to do about Western values. This obviously will help China in long term, and harm the West considering the extremely important strategic position of Turkey.

I do not see any circumstances where Turkey will remain neutral. Sure, they might become a satellite of China (like Russia will become), but I do not understand why becoming a satellite of China is more appealing than being a satellite of the US (as it has been since WW2 till Erdogan) for the US and the West.

 

[MTF]

I agree with that although there is a difference between "the Russians will find this action provocative" and "NATO provoked this invasion".

I think this is the most succinct version of the argument some of us are making here.

Heyyyy, me too.

1988 gang.

 

[Carolina Red]

This map is fake. Where did you take it from? Do you see the islands inside the red color? These are Greek islands! It is Greek territory, it should not be red.

Yes, it is true that Turkey does not have much sea. So what? The islands and the surrounding sea is Greek territory, that's what international law says.

Indeed. This is the actual EEZ of Greece

 

[Sweet Square]

Turkey has already decided it does not want the Western values.

 

[calodo2003]

It’s worth posting in three threads…

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Withnail]

Not sure where to put this Freudian slip so apologies if this is the wrong thread

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[2cents]

Not sure where to put this Freudian slip so apologies if this is the wrong thread

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Posted already right above you and in at least two other threads. Still worth it.

 

[calodo2003]

Posted already right above you and in at least two other threads. Still worth it.

Yeah, it deserves multi-thread postings, that’s for sure.

 

[Withnail]

Posted already right above you and in at least two other threads. Still worth it.

Ah crap. I'm working, and while not complete paying attention, I did check this page but must have scrolled right by it.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Reading the discussion of the past few pages, I'm wondering if the whole NATO isn't a kind of red herring. It was discussed many (many-many) pages ago that Russia might be less bothered by Ukraine's NATO membership than by the general concept of Ukraine sliding into the EU/NATO sphere of influence. Cause that would mean (1) the gradual/partial loss of a major strategic and economic regional partner; and (2) a country that Russians consider a real sister country turning into a liberal democracy (which might give Russians ideas as well).

(This was brought up by @oneniltothearsenal first I think, and someone mentioned it the past few pages as well, but I can't find that back now.)

So maybe the point for Russia isn't so much that Ukraine joining NATO poses a threat, but that they think that it would give them the material for internal and external messaging that could justify an invasion. I.e., Russia want to attack anyway because Ukraine is slipping away from them, but they feel they can't do it just for that reason. But if Ukraine looks to be joining NATO, then Russia can make a big noise about that and escalate that rhetoric to a justification for an invasion.

In their eyes, of course; regardless of whether we and others agree. But the NATO membership discussion would then be a (fully hollow) pretext for war, and US intelligence services would probably have been aware of that, and through them US government officials. (Although I am less sure about people like Mearsheimer and Chomsky, who from what I've seen seem to argue largely from Cold War logic. that I think is less relevant now. Like the Cuba missiles discussion of the past few pages, that now turns out to be irrelevant due to changing military realities.)

If my reasoning above is correct, there would indeed have been no alternative - except if Ukraine would have turned around and started looking to Russia instead of the EU again. A pretext would have presented itself to Russia one way or another - if not NATO membership, then something else.

That's a good summary. I'd add that there was no alternative because, in hindsight and based on his words and actions since the invasion, it's pretty clear that Putin wants/has always wanted Ukraine to be a puppet state controlled by himself ala Belarus rather than just its own self-determining nation. So anything short of that would necessitate action on his part. As others mentioned, this doesn't start with 2014, it starts when Putin came into power and began ruling based on his mercantilist and legacy imperialist views.

On a side note, I've read a ton of Chomsky in my time. Here, I think he makes an error of over-simplification to fit a tidy narrative that appeals to him. In a lot of ways, it's similar to his error in thinking that led to his prominence in the first place. His theory of Universal Grammar from the 50s-60s has been bypassed as modern linguistics has advanced (especially cognitive and neuro linguistics). UG isn't really accepted today and most of the current models and theories don't rely on UG at all.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Spoony]

That's a good summary. I'd add that there was no alternative because, in hindsight and based on his words and actions since the invasion, it's pretty clear that Putin wants/has always wanted Ukraine to be a puppet state controlled by himself ala Belarus rather than just its own self-determining nation. So anything short of that would necessitate action on his part. As others mentioned, this doesn't start with 2014, it starts when Putin came into power and began ruling based on his mercantilist and legacy imperialist views.

On a side note, I've read a ton of Chomsky in my time. Here, I think he makes an error of over-simplification to fit a tidy narrative that appeals to him. In a lot of ways, it's similar to his error in thinking that led to his prominence in the first place. His theory of Universal Grammar from the 50s-60s has been bypassed as modern linguistics has advanced (especially cognitive and neuro linguistics). UG isn't really accepted today and most of the current models and theories don't rely on UG at all.

Can you elaborate that please? About Universal Grammar being bypassed. A friend of mine won't shut up about UG. It's annoying.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

My apologies for the tangent to the mods

Can you elaborate that please? About Universal Grammar being bypassed. A friend of mine won't shut up about UG. It's annoying.

In short, Chomsky's UG asserts that a syntax or grammar structure is inherent in the brain that allows humans to learn language. This component is innate, genetic, and independent from meaning/semantics. Since he proposed this around the 60s, there has never actually been evidence supporting it. However, a ton of counter-evidence shows this is not how humans acquire language or language works.

• Evolutional biologists and neural network researchers, such as Terrence Deacon among many others, have shown that language results from the way our brains form neural networks. There is no syntax or grammar inherent in our minds, but rather the way our brains form complex neural networks allows language to form.
• Psychologists, like Jerome Bruner, have shown that children's pre-language forms of communication show there is not an inherent grammar structure innate to the brain.
• And cognitive linguists, like George Lakoff, have proposed alternative theories of language acquisition (conceptual metaphor) that have withstood empirical experiments far better than Chomsky's UG.

There is a ton of studies and research on neural networks from the last 30 years that essentially shows that Chomsky's UG is not accurate and doesn't reflect how children acquire language or how humans in general use language. And neural networks are in practical use. Google and other AI natural language processing are all based in some way on neural networks not on some innate Universal Grammar.

UG is a neat, tidy theory that just isn't accurate. There are tons written about this (there is a section in Lakoff's magnum opus Philosophy in the Flesh on it, Deacon has some work on it, and there is a wealth of papers and studies from the huge contingent of neural network folks). Just at the top of google here is one paper:

Universal Grammar (UG) is a suspect concept. There is little agreement on what exactly is in it; and the empirical evidence for it is very weak. This paper critically examines a variety of arguments that have been put forward as evidence for UG, focussing on the three most powerful ones: universality (all human languages share a number of properties), convergence (all language learners converge on the same grammar in spite of the fact that they are exposed to different input), and poverty of the stimulus (children know things about language which they could not have learned from the input available to them). I argue that these arguments are based on premises which are either false or unsubstantiated. Languages differ from each other in profound ways, and there are very few true universals, so the fundamental crosslinguistic fact that needs explaining is diversity, not universality. A number of recent studies have demonstrated the existence of considerable differences in adult native speakers’ knowledge of the grammar of their language, including aspects of inflectional morphology, passives, quantifiers, and a variety of more complex constructions, so learners do not in fact converge on the same grammar. Finally, the poverty of the stimulus argument presupposes that children acquire linguistic representations of the kind postulated by generative grammarians; constructionist grammars such as those proposed by Tomasello, Goldberg and others can be learned from the input. We are the only species that has language, so there must be something unique about humans that makes language learning possible. The extent of crosslinguistic diversity and the considerable individual differences in the rate, style and outcome of acquisition suggest that it is more promising to think in terms of a language-making capacity, i.e., a set of domain-general abilities, rather than an innate body of knowledge about the structural properties of the target system.

 

[Spoony]

My apologies for the tangent to the mods



In short, Chomsky's UG asserts that a syntax or grammar structure is inherent in the brain that allows humans to learn language. This component is innate, genetic, and independent from meaning/semantics. Since he proposed this around the 60s, there has never actually been evidence supporting it. However, a ton of counter-evidence shows this is not how humans acquire language or language works.

• Evolutional biologists and neural network researchers, such as Terrence Deacon among many others, have shown that language results from the way our brains form neural networks. There is no syntax or grammar inherent in our minds, but rather the way our brains form complex neural networks allows language to form.
• Psychologists, like Jerome Bruner, have shown that children's pre-language forms of communication show there is not an inherent grammar structure innate to the brain.
• And cognitive linguists, like George Lakoff, have proposed alternative theories of language acquisition (conceptual metaphor) that have withstood empirical experiments far better than Chomsky's UG.

There is a ton of studies and research on neural networks from the last 30 years that essentially shows that Chomsky's UG is not accurate and doesn't reflect how children acquire language or how humans in general use language. And neural networks are in practical use. Google and other AI natural language processing are all based in some way on neural networks not on some innate Universal Grammar.

UG is a neat, tidy theory that just isn't accurate. There are tons written about this (there is a section in Lakoff's magnum opus Philosophy in the Flesh on it, Deacon has some work on it, and there is a wealth of papers and studies from the huge contingent of neural network folks). Just at the top of google here is one paper:

Thanks for that.

Did he also say that humans should speak/talk in a universal/standard way to everyone whether they're your partner or a random personal you've just met?

 

[Raoul]

On Kissinger's recent reemergence into the news

Spoiler

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

This is one of those situations where it doesn't matter who says Ukraine should negotiate. They'll be considered unqualified to make a judgement because it isn't what people want to hear.

 

[Foxbatt]

This is one of those situations where it doesn't matter who says Ukraine should negotiate. They'll be considered unqualified to make a judgement because it isn't what people want to hear.

Actually Ukraine should not be negotiating their territory. But that does not mean they should not negotiate on other matters. They can still get their land (bar Crimea) back and be as it was before.

 

[berbatrick]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[berbatrick]

The overall lack of condemnation of the war by a lot of Russians is what I find disheartening. I know Russia isn't a democracy, doesn't have free press or free speech, but I would still have expected more protests by now. I know there are lots of wonderful Russians against the war like @harms and some real life friends but it seems the majority is with their dear leader in trying annex a fairly large neighboring country. Its surprising Paxi can hold the views he does with accessorisk to the free press.

The majority of people in every country support their country during wartime. This is true of defensive and offensive wars. Even wars now remembered as unpopular/illegal were *very* popular at the time, especially in the weeks/months after the start.

Digression, but the amount of devotion towards one's country is imo the main reason marx's predicted revolution failed - the start of ww1 was the moment for the increasingly powerful labour/social-democratic parties to oppose their own governments, refuse the war, and try to seize power, and instead every single one fell in line and supported "their" side.
The only major faction that didn't was the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular, and so you end up with the contradiction of socialism in one country.

 

[Gehrman]

The majority of people in every country support their country during wartime. This is true of defensive and offensive wars. Even wars now remembered as unpopular/illegal were *very* popular at the time, especially in the weeks/months after the start.

Digression, but the amount of devotion towards one's country is imo the main reason marx's predicted revolution failed - the start of ww1 was the moment for the increasingly powerful labour/social-democratic parties to oppose their own governments, refuse the war, and try to seize power, and instead every single one fell in line and supported "their" side.
The only major faction that didn't was the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular, and so you end up with the contradiction of socialism in one country.

Well the 2nd Iraq war for instance elicited the greatest anti war protests in history and that was yeah I know Bush was reelected, but the opposition to the Iraq war was substancial and notable. A bit like Vietnam.

 

[berbatrick]

Well the 2nd Iraq war for instance elicited the greatest anti war protests in history and that was yeah I know Bush was reelected, but the opposition to the Iraq war was substancial and notable. A bit like Vietnam.

support for the iraq war was 60-70% two months after it started. it dropped consistently below 50% only after 2 years.
don't know the vietnam figures well, but this paper also suggests about 2 years before a majority of support consistently evaporates.

there was more opposition to those wars, and those protests were stunning, but it's not as big a difference as you're suggesting.

 

[Gehrman]

support for the iraq war was 60-70% two months after it started. it dropped consistently below 50% only after 2 years.
don't know the vietnam figures well, but this paper also suggests about 2 years before a majority of support consistently evaporates.

there was more opposition to those wars, and those protests were stunning, but it's not as big a difference as you're suggesting.

Probably

 

[Classical Mechanic]

support for the iraq war was 60-70% two months after it started. it dropped consistently below 50% only after 2 years.
don't know the vietnam figures well, but this paper also suggests about 2 years before a majority of support consistently evaporates.

there was more opposition to those wars, and those protests were stunning, but it's not as big a difference as you're suggesting.

What are the current thoughts on those wars in the US? Iraq and Afghanistan I mean.

 

[Foxbatt]

I am sure that there are a considerable number of Russians who are against this war. Just that they are not able to make their voices heard.
As for the Iraq war it was mainly in Europe the people were against it. The majority of the international community were against it too.

 

[2cents]

Well the 2nd Iraq war for instance elicited the greatest anti war protests in history and that was yeah I know Bush was reelected, but the opposition to the Iraq war was substancial and notable

The two high points of Bush’s approval rating were 1. right after 9/11 and 2. right after the fall of Baghdad.

 

[berbatrick]

What are the current thoughts on those wars in the US? Iraq and Afghanistan I mean.

I think the last poll on Iraq was something like 43-48 right vs wrong decision, but I could be misremembering a wikipedia article


I know that both withdrawals were popular when they happened.

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

The majority of people in every country support their country during wartime. This is true of defensive and offensive wars. Even wars now remembered as unpopular/illegal were *very* popular at the time, especially in the weeks/months after the start.

Digression, but the amount of devotion towards one's country is imo the main reason marx's predicted revolution failed - the start of ww1 was the moment for the increasingly powerful labour/social-democratic parties to oppose their own governments, refuse the war, and try to seize power, and instead every single one fell in line and supported "their" side.
The only major faction that didn't was the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular, and so you end up with the contradiction of socialism in one country.

I don't think nationalism was the primary reason for that. There are at least two factors at least as important, IMO, more important. First is technological advance and how the 20th century's technological advances increased the standard of living at a rate even the 19th century couldn't take into account or predict. Second is the fact that psychologically, people vote and act based on moral values and narrative frames not economic self-interest. Another, although it could be interpreted as part 1 and part 2 would be what Yochai Benkler called the wealth of networks.

Then there is the idea that Marx's prediction has already come true in a sense just not the way he predicted it would.

 

[nickm]

Then there is the idea that Marx's prediction has already come true in a sense just not the way he predicted it would.

Yeah, I remember all that Web utopianism. I defy anyone to look at today's FAANG controlled internet and see any sort of techno socialism.

 

[2cents]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[nimic]

Turkey is definitely more important to Nato than Sweden and Finland would be. Rejecting them would probably only increase the importance of the EU as also a defensive union, though.

 

[2cents]

Turkey is definitely more important to Nato than Sweden and Finland would be. Rejecting them would probably only increase the importance of the EU as also a defensive union, though.

This seems like a decent rake on NATO’s Turkey problem (or Turkey’s NATO problem):

YOU GO TO WAR WITH THE TURKEY YOU HAVE, NOT THE TURKEY YOU WANT

https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/you-go-to-war-with-the-turkey-you-have-not-the-turkey-you-want/

 

[Raoul]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Carolina Red]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

I’m shocked

 

[Red Dreams]

The majority of people in every country support their country during wartime. This is true of defensive and offensive wars. Even wars now remembered as unpopular/illegal were *very* popular at the time, especially in the weeks/months after the start.

Digression, but the amount of devotion towards one's country is imo the main reason marx's predicted revolution failed - the start of ww1 was the moment for the increasingly powerful labour/social-democratic parties to oppose their own governments, refuse the war, and try to seize power, and instead every single one fell in line and supported "their" side.
The only major faction that didn't was the Bolsheviks and Lenin in particular, and so you end up with the contradiction of socialism in one country.

Wars last longer than they should because people mistake loyalty to their country to loyalty to their government.
Governments rarely have the interests of the people they govern. They are driven by different agendas.
Even if we look at WWII, it was caused by how the victorious Allies treated the German people. Thus the rise of Hitler.

The war in Ukraine can be ended by partitioning the country between the Eastern region which is primarily Russian speaking to the Western region.
A country is not made of land. It is made up of people. The reason for the war will no longer exist when there is this partition.
Each region/new country can determine their own autonomy.
All the money now being spent on war can instead be used to rebuild the lives of all affected.

Then there will be the peace.