If I was a conspiracy theorist, I’d speculate tensions are being orchestrated and exacerbated by Beijing. They are already winning this war and only have more to gain.
Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion
- Thread starter Wednesday at Stoke
- Start date
Why is it always said, that when it comes to Nordstream 2 the USA is overriding German sovereignity?
Yeah, they are pressuring Germany. But despite this pressure and even sanctions against Nordstream 2 it is technically finished and awaiting German government approval to become functional.
Nordstream 2 is in German politics a hot topic. A significant portion of politicians, experts and the population think it is a very bad idea.
I think the west might just throw Ukraine to the wolves (or bear) on the off-chance that Putin might just jump into his own Vietnam. A prolonged war with the body bags returning to Mother Russia on a regular basis might weaken him at home. Ukraine will lose ultimately but they will fight like hell. Ukraine is not in NATO but NATO will carefully observe.
This all depends on the might of Russian propaganda though and what "truths" get through to the Russian people. The Russian economy cannot go on a prolonged war footing without the people feeling the pinch.
Just my thoughts but one thing is for sure, The Mail and some other tabloids just can't wait for it to kick off!
This all depends on the might of Russian propaganda though and what "truths" get through to the Russian people. The Russian economy cannot go on a prolonged war footing without the people feeling the pinch.
Just my thoughts but one thing is for sure, The Mail and some other tabloids just can't wait for it to kick off!
Because when a US president assumes he/she has the right to decide the issue of the German state, that is exactly what is happening. Even if you think it is the right thing to do, how do you justify the US being the one to decide it?
Nordstream 2 is built. Whether it's a bad idea or not is hardly relevant. It was built despite the existence of sanctions, too. Germany receives 50% of its energy supply from Russia. It is decommissioning or has decommissioned its nuclear energy apparatuses. Where will it find half of its energy supply within a few years?
The UK receives a tenth of the supply from Russia which Germany does. Probably why they are more eager to push buttons.
I think that’s certainly the plan in the event Russia does invade. Certainly some hawks have made the suggestion and it’s been somewhat listened to (evidenced by the fact they are only giving Ukraine shit weapons)
Can't believe you're serious. Essentially you think Putin will ensure the end of the world if this goes to war.
Its such a simplistic viewpoint. I think @Tucholsky covers it perfectly in his above post.
The US president hasn’t decided anything, he’s not bullying Germany. Sure, he’s providing pressure, but that’s what allies do.
It's what all allies do, especially great powers. Nothing to do with empire building.
No. If it goes to a war and the Russians are getting hammered. ( They will get a hammering in a conventional war), do you think Putin is not going to use nuclear weapons? He is. This is why it's called MAD. Not even to have a conventional war between super powers.
Haven't heard a German chancellor yet giving his take on the environmental or security implications of the Keystone pipeline or NAFTA. Apparently we're not proper allies then.
Ukraine isn't in Russia.
Totally agreed on this point.
Everyone knows this, including the country that is doing the hammering. I can't see anything else than fight till the restoration of the status quo, avoiding complete wipeout and humiliation. It absurd to think any hot conflict between nuclear powers will go nuclear- see USSR/China, China/India , etc.
That's a contradiction. When an empire exerts pressure on what it views as a vassal state, it has everything to do with empire building and the maintenance of empire. This is as true for the small Russian empire run by Putin (its view of Ukraine) as it is for the global empire run by the US (its view of Germany and Europe by extension).
If it was a true empire this pipeline would have never been built.
Iraq.
The US: "Iran was pulling the strings".
Japan.
The US: "China is pulling the strings".
Domestically. Black Lives Matter.
The US: "Russia is pulling the strings".
Russia has three bases that are not contiguous with its own border. The Netherlands also has three. China has two. One non contiguous with its own border. So, what exactly are you defining as "empire"? By any definition, the US is an empire.
OK we are back to whataboutstuff
How? Is the US an empire or not? If you can't answer without accusing someone of whataboutery, then probably no point of replying. If your own reply is it isn't relevant, then there's also no point.
This stems from your claim that the US is not a "true empire". Facts which run contrary to unfounded opinions bearing directly upon the matter are now cast as whataboutery? What kind of mental sophistry is this?
It's not a true empire. It didn't annex a huge chunk of a neighboring country. It has influence over allied countries but no in the same way as Russia who do it mostly by military means.
I don' think the term empire is particularly useful in a modern context. The US is the world's most powerful state, which makes it a hyper power (military/economic/technology) in an international system that is anarchic. China is near the US in that it is catching up very quickly.
The having a lot of bases around the world bit is also misleading because they are there as a result of bilateral agreements with the host countries, and excepting rare conditions, the US wouldn't be there without an invitation and status of forces agreement that regulates bases in foreign nations.
The US is, from beginning to now, one giant annexation. Without taking into account Mexico, Philippines, and too "historical" matters, what is the presence of a military base in a country that does not want it there if not the logic of empire? A de facto annexation. Guantanamo Bay as of now meets that exact definition. The US uses military means more often than any country on the face of the planet. It doesn't maintain those bases because they are good points from which to send faxes or because the underwater cable is particularly good. It has funded coup after coup even amongst its allies, and is currently funding and training the overthrow of African "allies" as we speak. It is an empire, and when bullets and bombs are dropped on you it makes no comfort to know that they are coming from a "democracy" rather than an "autocracy". Which is why this "side-taking" troubles me. The ease with which people accept things without questioning them because they are influenced by that which seems self-evident (received categorisation) and then react with hostility when others poke holes in carefully maintained illusions which comfort them.
Not military focused but PBS has a pretty good series of inteviews on youtube called 'The Putin Files' with people very familiar with Putin's Russia for one reason or another.
Bill Browder / Sergei Magnitsky's story is required reading.
I think it is useful insofar as we speak of the game being played. If only to remind people that the US acts, when playing this game, as every other empire acts (without any kind of morality).
The world is becoming multi-polar, but the US still retains hegemony. We're talking decades before that is equalized. It has both qualitative and quantitative advantage over every other country. Labeling the US an "empire" is not meant as an insult to Americans or whoever sympathizes with them, but as a reminder of the useful distinction made between what powerful states do internally versus what they do externally. And externally, the US is no democracy even though internally it is highly democratic (much like the British Empire which it more or less inherited post-WW2).
Can we move the whataboutism to another thread? Or do mods have special privileges to spout whatever they want, wherever they want?
I just find it to be an increasingly archaic term that isn't really explanatory of behavior in a modern context, mainly because it evokes memories of actual historical empires that have no application in today's digital world.
Back to Russia/Ukraine
It isn't whataboutism, though is it? I replied directly to two posters asking me to clarify my position. And have since further clarified. The only genuine whataboutery is people claiming it without substantiating. Raoul and Firestarter disagree with me, but each has directly stated why. No one doubts Russia is anti-democratic autocracy, but in matters of foreign affairs (which we are talking about right now) everyone assumes America is "democratic" and I cannot share that confidence because it is an empire. That is not whataboutery just because you do not like or agree with the distinction.
Yeah, I know why you disagree, which is fair enough. For another thread.
Agreed.
That's not what I said. I said any situation where war is avoided (and therefore by extension deaths of people are avoided)is never a bad thing.
That doesn't mean that the status quo is necessarily a good thing either though.
So, where would Putin strike first with nuclear weapons if he was getting hammered? The battlefield? Further abroad?
Sure you are. A submissive one. The same way as most EU members are submissive to you.
There's always a pecking order. Why do some nations have veto power and others don't?
How about "Superpower" then, a well used Cold War term?
I get you. Appeasement immediately springs to mind though.
You're conflating entirely different things in my opinion. I entirely disagree.
For starters, an empire can be democratic. The Roman empire and British empires both were to a large degree. I'd likely agree that it's reasonable to consider the USA an empire to some degree too.
That said, a strong 'friend' pressuring a weaker 'friend' is pretty much exactly what IR is all about. Empire or not.
I tend to use an even older one, "great power"
The terms used aren't really important, it's just something to umbrella multiple behaviours under.I said at the time and I still think the US's claims that the invasion was imminent, and the push to withdraw staff and civilians from Ukraine, was not about the latest intel and was instead a game theory move that A) allowed Russia to save face by simply not invading, despite the claims of the West, and B) ensured that Russia would absolutely be painted as the aggressor were the situation to ramp up further.
I will check these out. Cheers.
I'm struggling to identify why any American or Canadian would have any positive associations with Nazism unless they themselves are an anti-Semite, whereas unfortunately Ukrainian nationalism still gets wrapped up with the volatile alliances of the Second World War where Nazi regiments and Ukrainian resistance fighters fought together against their Soviet/Russian oppressors.
Can we have a vote whether Ukraine should be able to decide whether they should be s part og NATO ord not.
They are able to decide but as everything else in life and in particular in geopolitics there are potential consequences.