Source is Russian affiliated apparently but the content is the important part. The Solomon Islands' proposed security arrangement with China moves ahead, in spirit, despite backlash from its "Western" neighbours.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
Source is Russian affiliated apparently but the content is the important part. The Solomon Islands' proposed security arrangement with China moves ahead, in spirit, despite backlash from its "Western" neighbours.
True, yet completely correct this time.
Suddenly we're back to "regional security concerns" being valid discourse. We even had Australian media suggestion an invasion to prevent it
I'm sure it's right wing media as it always is but it's a line so many fall for. Our security alliances are valid and of no concern to anyone, your security alliances are an unacceptable threat. A double standard based on otherism and western hegemony being elite.
How so? If Ukraine has been offering these things, and yet the invasion has continued with the only thing stalling it being a combination of Russian incompetence and Ukrainian resistance, that actually suggests that there is indeed more to this action than Ukraine’s international alignment. Never mind that Mehdi’s simple mind doesn’t seem to have considered that, short of accepting its own dismemberment, neutrality is pretty much all Kiev has to offer at the table.
Ukraine wasn't offering these things before the invasion, is the point Medhi is making. And in terms of criticism, people started a movement to discredit anyone who raised these issues as potentially problematic and potentially key to resolving the situation before the outbreak of war. NATO was clearly a factor. The point you're making is that Ukraine offering these things should be enough to ensure peace. Russia did have other objectives. Demilitarization which Ukraine has pushed back on, rightly, and so they do have things to offer beside NATO and neutrality (Crimea and Donbas arrangements being two other key points).
I don't think that is the point he's making, but in any case, Zelensky was talking in mid-February about how NATO membership was not going to happen. And if NATO membership is as key to this as is often suggested, than Kiev's offers of the last month should have been enough to secure a ceasefire at the very least.
Mciahel Goodman said:
People disagreeing on the internet is not a movement. And he's pushing a strawman by suggesting that "serious people" were claiming that this had nothing to do with NATO. All serious people accept that NATO membership is a factor to be considered, the debate is over its actual significance in the broader historic context of Russia's relations with the West and its own imperial history.
Mciahel Goodman said:
The offer of neutrality will only be enough to ensure peace if Moscow concludes that the cost of continuing to push for more is not worth it. Perhaps we'll reach that point shortly, but I have doubts. Ceding Crimea and Donbas equals accepting dismemberment, and demilitarization means removing the one obstacle to preventing further dismemberment. I'd assume they will only be offered if the tides of this war change in Moscow's favor, although an offer of autonomy for Crimea and Donbas seems a pain-free way to attempt to smooth the re-establishment of Ukrainian sovereignty in those regions (not that I expect Moscow to cede on Crimea). Yet if this war had gone as Moscow planned, we'd be far beyond discussion of these things, and possibly getting to grips with things like support for the government-in-exile or how to conduct relations with the Lviv puppet-regime.
It absolutely is when refracted through broadcast and print media as part of an overall state strategy, which is/was the case. Check the demonization of Mearsheimer (very real) and revisionism regarding those same "serious" people who spoke on the topic for decades. These were scholars. He is talking about state aligned broadcast outlets, which is a different group of "serious" people.
There had been a build-up of NATO military hardware and assets in Ukraine for eight years. It was a de facto NATO state, or becoming one. Or, Ukraine was not in NATO but NATO was definitely in Ukraine.
Yeah I agree with this part.
Western propaganda is definitely smarter since it doesn't market itself in the same way. It comes in many different and subtle ways. Independent investigative journalism, documentaries, or even movies.
I personally believe most of our Propaganda is good, it is often the only way to push forward just and rightous ideals. People do not change their minds easily.
This is one strange example of propaganda, I can think of. In this case, history teaching certainly plays a role as well.
In 1945, most French people thought that the Soviet Union deserved the most credit for Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II — even though the Soviets didn't play much of a role in France's liberation, relative to the US and Britain. By 1995 and 2004, however, the French had changed their minds, and were crediting the US as the biggest contributor to victory in Europe:
But it is still a very open society. And regimes like Putin's can use that to their advantage. This recent poll shows that too many in France (52%) adhere to some of the Russian propaganda about the War, despite the Western media's relentless work to discredit the Russian narrative. And despite the censorship of RT and its affiliates.
"28% believe that the Russian intervention is supported by Russian-speaking Ukrainians wishing to free themselves from the persecutions they suffer"
This doesn't mean that these 28 % support the invasion, but they seem to believe that Russian-speaking Ukrainians do.
So if the Ukrainians offer the Russians to rename some streets with Bandera's name, will you post a tweet laughing at the people stating that de-nazification wasn't a primary war goal?
I don't think anyone realistically believed that Ukraine has a nazification problem or that it was the reason for Russia invading. It's in no way similar to the discussion of NATO expansion being a cause.
It is when you try to break a complex issue down to some stupid "gotcha" tweet.
You may be right… I wasn’t arguing one way or the other about propaganda in that post, I was just trying to get Mcihael to clear up what he was arguing.
It isn't a "gotcha". It's to highlight how/why it (briefly) became heterodox to speak in factual terms. The people briefing against NATO being a factor knew it was a factor as Obama and other administrations, and senate/house committees under those administrations, have openly spoken about it (McFaul is a good example, but there were scores of such talking heads pushing the same narrative). The move was to narrow the topic down to "democracy versus autocracy" which is also a legitimate issue but dissenting views which were previously orthodox were maligned. That's not something that should happen.
Yeah I didn't make myself very clear either but Pintu and others have done a better job of getting to what I meant than I did (Nimic and Frosty too iirc).
Edit: As for good/necessary propaganda, public health discourse is a good example of a necessary sphere for state propaganda. But I actually think they've become so slick in their PR campaigns that even the good causes/initiatives suffer from overproduction/oversaturation and association with political campaigns that were in bad faith, leading to mass distrust (and batshit things like QANON). Another tangent, though.
Last edited:
That must be why his careful analysis of the situation mentions he was smeared and is owed an apology.
Probably. I don't know about his personal motives but the topic is legitimate.
It's language like this that loses me. There was no demonization, just refutation of his overly simplistic arguments and selective use of facts. From what I read of him and why I think he was wrong, was because he didn't just try to say "NATO expansion was a factor" but he had articles and interviews where NATO/US was blamed for the invasion (tacitly excusing/minimizing Putin's actions). That is quite an extreme (and incorrect IMO) conclusion to draw. On the last page of this thread, a few posters made a compelling case completely refuting the angle that a "promise" was made yet Mearsheimer, a scholar, does not take all of these facts into account. That's why many people, including the NY Times article I linked, believe he is past his due date. That's not demonization but an acknowledgment that his views are flawed and shouldn't be held up as the gold standard of international relations.
I'll have to check it again later but I think there was a fully fledged McCarthyite attempt to cancel him at one point (that's why I used that term).
As for the rest, it depends on how you squint really. The "promise" issue is not conclusive except each side can, with decent levels of accuracy, say that they are right. The historical record backs up Gorbachev's claim (from Baker's diary) but then that it wasn't in writing leaves room for interpretation. It's not that he's even the gold standard, it's that the NATO line was absolutely rubbished for a time (there were many, many, others who predate and come after Mearsheimer who made similar arguments and some of these were/are involved directly with the US security apparatus.
That sounds like extreme hyperbole and definitely doesn't describe the articles I've read in the New Yorker, NY Times, and The Atlantic. I think that's a bit extreme language that doesn't reflect the broader perspective.
I don't see this as a "squinting" issue. Without a treaty in international relations, you can't declare there was a "promise." And others made compelling points about it not being reasonable to take an informal statement, made without US President approval during negotiations with a dissolving nation-state as some iron-clad promise to the new nation-state. I also don't think the historical record backs up any claims that a promise was made. this conclusion is pretty definitive from one of your own sources
Also, the idea that NATO expansion was the primary cause for Putin's invasion was rubbished by Putin's own words and actions that show he clearly had goals far beyond just "stopping NATO expansion."
You mean denazification? I wouldn't take that seriously. Seems meant for domestic consumption.
That's his euphemism for regime change which, again, goes far beyond just preventing NATO expansion. He clearly doesn't want a liberal democracy next door (irrespective of whether it's in NATO) and clearly wants influence over Ukraine both politically and economically the way he has over Lukashenko and Kadyrov.
Also, what Putin might settle for now or in the coming months doesn't prove what his goals were because by every account this has been a disastrous performance by Russia so clearly he'd settle for much less than he originally intended.
Mehdi doesn't know what he's talking about. His account is becoming a bit trollish lately, which is problematic for an MSNBC employee.
Right. But what if he specifically wants influence over Ukraine to steer them away from potential NATO membership. Influence over Ukraine and preventing NATO-expansion don't have to be mutually exclusive in that regard.
With regards to a liberal democracy next door whether it's NATO or not, I'm not sure. It seems a valid point and probably is, but the Baltics are liberal democracies too and that doesn't seem to have induced the Russian population to get ideas on a large scale. Because that's what the Putin regime fears, isn't it?
Maybe, but he was the subject of a petition to have him resign, be fired, or else pronounce his loyalty to Ukraine. Might not reflect the broader perpective, but it happened. Will look again.
Gorbachev acted on the "promise" and Baker's "we agree with this" (speaking on behalf of the president). The source I used is ultimately bifurcated and leaves an ambiguous reading, which PedroMendez rightly pointed out (though you can read it which way you want, the essence of ambiguity).
It's not an insane argument. Why not invade Finland? If it's just democracy and freedom that Putin despises? Flippant, but there's a point there. NATO clearly played a significant role. From the Maidan Coup to the eight years of funding and military aid, to plans of infrastructure, to Ukraine moving back and forth on whether it would join. Didn't Ukraine enshrine "joining NATO" in their constitution in 2019 so every president woud be obligated to make an effort to join? Maybe I picked that part up wrong. Also, NATO's tactic of accepting Ukraine's efforts publicly but never committing to refusal outright despite apparently never entertaining the idea of Ukraine joining (what exactly were they doing there for eight years if there was no prospect of Ukraine joining? What are they doing there now?).
Yeah I'm not a fan of his, but his conclusion here is standard enough (NATO absolutely a [significant] factor, Putin absolutely to blame).
I think it's very generous (and naive) to believe that Putin only wants influence over Ukraine to steer them away from NATO. It's clear from his actions that his intention goes quite a bit beyond just that. If that was his only motivating factor, he picked the worst strategy to achieve that.
Comparing something to McCarthy isn't a light comparison. McCarthy was a US Senator who wielded tremendous power in his heyday. It's really not remotely the same as a few loud voices on Twitter. There were plenty of people that disagree with Merisheimer like the NY Times article I linked that goes nowhere near what McCarthy did so I just think that's hyperbole that really doesn't accurately describe what happened.
I think it was much less ambiguous than you make out. The quote that I re-posted was pretty clear. It's also without contention that there was never a clause in any treaty. I think you undervalue how much treaties and official agreements actually mean when it comes to claiming something is a "promise." It never had the agreement of the US President at the time and was never part of any formal agreement so it can't be a promise.
I'm sure Putin would if he could. Invading Finland would be a completely different situation and a different set of calculations. It also wouldn't make strategic sense to invade Finland before Ukraine.
Anyway, we aren't likely to ever agree here since I don't see the evidence to support a claim that NATO expansion was a primary factor in Russia's invasion. It simply wasn't a necessary or sufficient condition.
And as I mentioned I don't see that assertion fitting Putin's actual strategy since invading. I think Mearshiemer (for one) is dead wrong that a Ukraine that was a liberal democracy, with close economic ties to the west and basically doing the same things but just not looking to join NATO would have somehow meant Putin never would have invaded.
He's confusing causes and symptoms.
The basic issue is that Putin can't accept that Ukraine is an independent state that wishes to move away from its historic ties to Russia. That's the basic cause. All the other stuff - Maidan, EU, NATO, the current war etc are symptoms of Ukraine's developing European statehood.
Whilst i don't disagree with any of that, if Ukraine didn't share a border and didn't have strategic pipelines do you think Russia would care about it's Europe leaning ambitions? The geography is obviously relevant which is why both can be true.
I would agree with that (the majority of Ukraine wants to move away from Russia and integrate into Europe, and this was true before the war and has been for a while). I would add that the Donbas and Crimea are not the same and the majority want to retain their Russian identity. That's also a large part of the problem. Also, I don't think Putin cares that much about the EU as he gave that up almost immediately in the negotiations from what I can see.
"Putin Lives in Historic Analogies and Metaphors"
There's some nuggets here that apply better to this thread than the invasion one...
@Mciahel Goodman
There's some nuggets here that apply better to this thread than the invasion one...
@Mciahel Goodman
Indeed - thought you'd enjoy the last part
Makes my blood boil just listening to his holier than thou spiel. I'm talking about the CIA guy and not Pilger.
Dewey Clarridge was a bit of a nut. I liken him to being a sort of Erik Prince of the espionage world, given his private intelligence activities after he left the CIA. Not that it changes that the US did actively help Pinochet oust Allende, and then supported Pinochet's government, but just that Clarridge's attitude about it is erm... not the norm.
there is no such thing as a good american foreign policy. just pure evil.
You can imagine Putin saying the same thing to anyone who would question him on this.
Why are you invading Ukraine? Because of national security interests, so tough.
I thought someone would say that. The only insane thing about his interview there is that he tells you the truth without the usual political filter. I believe it is the norm with one exception: it isn't normally spoken about so honestly.
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Henry Kissinger+Obama said:
You will hear no defense from me about the US involvement in SE Asia, nor of their involvement in supporting military dictatorships in Latin America. But, as I said, Dewey Clarridge is not the most normal type of government official.