Ukraine

[RichardB]

Let's be clearer then. Nato is not pushing the former eastern bloc countries to join.

Are you sure about that? There are many ways in which that pushing can take place, most of them economic.

As far as the Ukraine conflict is concerned, you either think the west/Nato is to blame for provoking Russia. Or you think Russia is to blame. Take your choice.

There is no need to choose one OR the other. Look at the way the USA is concentrating on pouring military equipment into Ukraine, rather than making any attempt to move towards a ceasefire and some kind of settlement which would end the killing and destruction even if that means that some of Putin's objectives are conceded.

[Frances_iom]

... even if that means that some of Putin's objectives are conceded.

so what more would be acceptable - an attempt to retake the Baltic states, a bit more off Finland - your argument is that force wins.

[RichardB]

so what more would be acceptable - an attempt to retake the Baltic states, a bit more off Finland - your argument is that force wins.

No, my argument is that stopping the killing should be the priority, and it isn't.

[french frank]

Are you sure about that? There are many ways in which that pushing can take place, most of them economic.

Well, it depends on how you view Ukraine's situation. Must it remain a neutral buffer zone which is not allowed to choose its own direction, but accept that it must consider itself a part of Russia's 'sphere of influence'; or is it a sovereign state with a right to say economically we'll be better off joining the western organisations, whether the EU or Nato? Is it a football or an independent democratic state?

There is no need to choose one OR the other. Look at the way the USA is concentrating on pouring military equipment into Ukraine, rather than making any attempt to move towards a ceasefire and some kind of settlement which would end the killing and destruction even if that means that some of Putin's objectives are conceded.

No, there's no need to literally make a choice, is there. Have there not been attempts at talks between the US and Russia already? Why pick on the US? Several European states have had talks and have ended up 'pouring military equipment into Ukraine'. I'm not sure I know what Putin's publicly expressed objectives are so it's hard to know what could be conceded. We want to take Crimea from Ukraine. We want to take Donbas from Ukraine. We want a land bridge from Donbas to the border with Moldova, so including Odesa (so that we can then rescue Transnistria from Nazis)? Who knows?

[RichardB]

Well, it depends on how you view Ukraine's situation. Must it remain a neutral buffer zone which is not allowed to choose its own direction, but accept that it must consider itself a part of Russia's 'sphere of influence'; or is it a sovereign state with a right to say economically we'll be better off joining the western organisations, whether the EU or Nato? Is it a football or an independent democratic state?

The same could be said about very many countries. But surely the point is not some doubtful concept of democracy or sovereignty but whether the actual people in a given part of the world are able to go about their lives without being bombed or besieged or threatened with such things. And that the attention of those in power is redirected to more important issues like the climate emergency. Why "pick on the US"? Because the decisions of its government have a direct bearing on how the war in Ukraine continues. Because of its combined economic and military power. Because of its undisputed dominance of NATO. You're right, we don't know what Putin's objectives are in detail. But we do know that wars end either with the destruction of one side or with a negotiated peace.

[Joseph K]

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/05/09/i-led-talks-on-the-donbas-and-crimea-in-the-1990s-heres-how-the-war-should-end/

[Serial_Apologist]

Why pick on the US?

I don't think history is served by seeing conflicts in terms of this or that side starting it, analogously to establishing blame for a playground scrap. Situations always undergo long gestation periods before reaching critical mass points, and causes are complex.

[french frank]

I don't think history is served by seeing conflicts in terms of this or that side starting it, analogously to establishing blame for a playground scrap. Situations always undergo long gestation periods before reaching critical mass points, and causes are complex.

My feeling too. Nor do I think it's right to immediately 'take sides' on issues in which, at best, we have minimal personal involvement. It's desperately sad to see all this hapless innocent suffering. And yet, and yet, we can only exert pressure on 'our' side, plead with them to do what they can to stop it. But they can do without our advice on how to achieve it.

The US did at least have a mechanism which allowed a Trump to be removed after a single term. Russia appears to have no such mechanism. This came up in discussion here a few months back: how is it that dangerously flawed personalities win the power (charisma = 'the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm') to be so destructive? Whatever one thinks of US society and government, it's worth taking time to consider how it compares with Russia.

[RichardB]

Whatever one thinks of US society and government, it's worth taking time to consider how it compares with Russia.

Indeed there is the suffering of Russian people to take into account. Although perhaps it should also be noted that the celebrated "checks and balances" don't prevent the US Supreme Court from being packed with extreme conservatives on a mission to make abortion illegal.

As you say, there is only one "side" we as citizens of Western countries can ever hope to bring any meaningful pressure on. That doesn't mean critics of US/Western policy should be accused of supporting "the other side". I don't see why so many people (including on this forum) seem to find that so difficult to appreciate.

[Dave2002]

My feeling too. Nor do I think it's right to immediately 'take sides' on issues in which, at best, we have minimal personal involvement. It's desperately sad to see all this hapless innocent suffering. And yet, and yet, we can only exert pressure on 'our' side, plead with them to do what they can to stop it. But they can do without our advice on how to achieve it.

The US did at least have a mechanism which allowed a Trump to be removed after a single term. Russia appears to have no such mechanism. This came up in discussion here a few months back: how is it that dangerously flawed personalities win the power (charisma = 'the capacity to inspire devotion or enthusiasm') to be so destructive? Whatever one thinks of US society and government, it's worth taking time to consider how it compares with Russia.

The US presents difficult conundrums. It has a several hundred years old constitution. Recent indications are that some issues might be decided - at least for the time being - by whether they are "constitutional" or not. Really this is madness - it doesn't seem to occur to people that "rules" suggested and/or laid down hundreds of years ago may now be outdated. Then there is the US pre-occupation with guns. Sure - the constitution mentions the right to bear arms, but that is also qualified by purpose and means. At the time that the constitution was formulated there were no Kalashnikov's or whatever the US favourite automatic rapid firing weapons of choice is nowadays. What is to stop a US citizen claiming a right to have a portable rocket launcher?

Then the curious views put out by some of the US gun lobbyists - they want weapons in order to combat a clamping down on freedom of choice by the government. In other words to be able to oppose government actions by using or threatening physical violence. I found that view strange - but clearly some in the US are concerned about that. Then lastly, since Trump has been mentioned, is it not the case that given opportunities to extend his power or time in office he was prepared to encourage violence, and would maybe have been quite happy to rewrite the constitution or other laws in order to extend his power. So is the US mechanism to prevent this happening really strong enough? I think Russia did have mechanisms, but such mechanisms have all been subverted - as indeed by other regimes in countries such as China.

[Mario]

Then the curious views put out by some of the US gun lobbyists - they want weapons in order to combat a clamping down on freedom of choice by the government. In other words to be able to oppose government actions by using or threatening physical violence. I found that view strange - but clearly some in the US are concerned about that.

Dave2002 is absolutely correct here.

We were holidaying and met some Texans a few years ago. They live in Houston. Starting talking, they expressed the idea of us NOT carrying guns as rather quaint. They also said they long for the day when Americans don’t have to carrying guns.

The nicest most harmless couple you could imagine. The husband confessed to me that he had 4 guns in his possession, but would love to live the life we live, i.e., in a gun-free society.

His answer to my question, “So why don’t you give guns up then?”, simply terrified me.

“You don’t think we carry guns to protect ourselves in our home against burglars, do you?”

“Well, what else do you have them for?” I asked rather naively.

“To use against any government that tries to take our guns away.”

This is a true story.

I believe we have some US residents on this forum. Maybe they could enlighten us, but I doubt that in my lifetime, we will see a gun-free US.

Mario

[french frank]

Indeed there is the suffering of Russian people to take into account. Although perhaps it should also be noted that the celebrated "checks and balances" don't prevent the US Supreme Court from being packed with extreme conservatives on a mission to make abortion illegal.

The Economist Intelligence Unit only rates the US as a 'flawed democracy'. It constantly amazes me how much relating to government is unnecessarily politicised by constitutionally established political appointments. Why on earth are Supreme Court justices appointed by politicians?

As you say, there is only one "side" we as citizens of Western countries can ever hope to bring any meaningful pressure on. That doesn't mean critics of US/Western policy should be accused of supporting "the other side". I don't see why so many people (including on this forum) seem to find that so difficult to appreciate.

I have always thought that it is crucially important to be critical of "one's own side". We don't want 'our' people falling short of the highest standards. There is some Schadenfreude when the opposition lets itself down. I suppose the hope is that the floating 'in-betweens' will be influenced by this. But I suppose individuals are judged by how balanced their criticisms are. If they are constantly - predictably - criticising one side, the natural conclusion is that they are more sympathetic to the other side.

As far as the US is concerned (I visited it once, don't want to go again ), it seems ironic that they should be criticised for 'interfering' in foreign affairs when they should stay out, and in not 'intervening' when they should. Biden is a naturally cautious politician and how to deal with the cornered rat is a difficult problem.

[Joseph K]

But I suppose individuals are judged by how balanced their criticisms are. If they are constantly - predictably - criticising one side, the natural conclusion is that they are more sympathetic to the other side.

I think it ought to be natural that one's own government be the focus of one's criticism. This absolutely does not necessarily mean or imply that there is another government or side that one is sympathetic towards. I think that kind of binary thinking is a bit silly.

[Serial_Apologist]

But I suppose individuals are judged by how balanced their criticisms are. If they are constantly - predictably - criticising one side, the natural conclusion is that they are more sympathetic to the other side.

Balanced according to whom? Predictably according to whom? Such unsubstantiated rhetorical terms is always tantamount to "If you are not for us you must be against us" platitudes.

As far as the US is concerned (I visited it once, don't want to go again ), it seems ironic that they should be criticised for 'interfering' in foreign affairs when they should stay out, and in not 'intervening' when they should. Biden is a naturally cautious politician and how to deal with the cornered rat is a difficult problem.

Only ironic if one overlooks the long and proven record of US interference! The Trump-styled reaction to the "successes" of such, in terms of supporting right wing dictators in various parts of the world putting down radical governments challenging the right of multinationals, the Word Bank and IMF to dictate policy on economic autonomy, and "failure" when it came to Vietnam, has been a characteristically truculent "Well if you don't like us backing up (what we decide as being) what is in your best interests, then you can go hang; in future we'll look after our own kind, thank you very much".

[Dave2002]

As far as the US is concerned (I visited it once, don't want to go again ), it seems ironic that they should be criticised for 'interfering' in foreign affairs when they should stay out, and in not 'intervening' when they should. Biden is a naturally cautious politician and how to deal with the cornered rat is a difficult problem.

There are many issues about the US. That's not so different from the UK and Europe. It's a great country to visit, and also a great country to live in. However many who live there are completely unaware of what's going on in the rest of the world, or even where other countries are. Having said that, many of them are pretty unaware of what's going on in their own country.

I suggest that not wanting to visit the US again is not a good flag to wave - like people who confess that they didn't like maths. There's nothing really to be ashamed of about not understanding maths - it's not always that easy - but using such ignorance as a badge of honour isn't great. However I can say right now that I have no desire to visit Russia again - at least not in the near future - and I'm sure many people there are very decent, but largely unaware of what's going on in the world, or even in their own country.