About the Russian aggression of Ukraine

[tadmjones]

On 9/21/2022 at 3:32 PM, tadmjones said:

Journo:

“In his 2014 essay “Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault,” Mearsheimer makes a revealing assertion. When “great powers get into brawls with weaker states,” talk of “abstract rights” such as “self-determination” — presumably including a sovereign nation’s goal of avoiding foreign despotism — is “largely meaningless.”4 This endorsement of injustice is a necessary consequence of Mearsheimer’s amoralist framework.”

 

Mearsheimer from his essay/article:

“ne also hears the claim that Ukraine has the right to determine
whom it wants to ally with and the Russians have no right to pre
vent Kiev from joining the West. This is a dangerous way for Ukraine
to think about its foreign policy choices. The sad truth is that might
often makes right when great-power politics are at play. Abstract
rights such as self-determination are largely meaningless when power
ful states get into brawls with weaker states. Did Cuba have the
right to form a military alliance with the Soviet Union during the Cold
War? The United States certainly did not think so, and the Russians
think the same way about Ukraine joining the West. It is in Ukraine’s
interest to understand these facts of life and tread carefully when
dealing with its more powerful neighbor.”

Journo’s editing of the paragraph imputes a level of injustice endorsement that Mearsheimer’s ordering of the words/idea don’t carry. While Mearsheimer’s realpolitik doesn’t allow for a moral condemnation of Putin based on his regime, his pragmatic/practical/‘amoral’ assessment doesn’t necessarily negate a normative response to aggression  eg “sad truth that often might makes right when great-power politics are at play”

 

Journo’s conclusion that Mearsheimer’s realpolitik evaluation is an endorsement of injustice is predicated on the noxious practice of split quoting , no ? Feels a little ad homienm-y too .

[necrovore]

I would argue with this:

Quote

First: the character of NATO. It was created in the Cold War to defend against the threat of the Soviet Union. The USSR was on a global crusade to overthrow free societies in the name of Communism. A distinctive feature of NATO is the agreement that if one member is attacked, all the others will come to its defense. Though NATO has added new member states since the end of the Cold War, none exhibits ambitions for territorial expansion toward Russia.

Although NATO did have the stated purpose of defending Europe from the Soviet Union, it had another purpose. The US paid almost the entire cost of NATO. This meant that the European countries did not have to spend very much money on their own defense at all. This meant that they were free to spend the money on social programs instead. Therefore, NATO had the effect of subsidizing European socialism with US tax dollars. This allowed the Democrats to point to Europe as an example of “successful” socialism, so that they could advocate for it in the United States (even though it costs too much in the US because there is no one to subsidize the US’s defense). It also gave socialists in Europe more power than they would have otherwise had. This is the main reason why NATO had to continue to exist even after the fall of the Soviet Union, and why Russia was not allowed to join.

Countries such as Germany have welcomed the opportunity to donate their old weapons systems to the cause in Ukraine and get free modern replacement systems from the US through NATO.

The Nordic countries didn’t have to join NATO at first, because they were able to finance their socialism by selling fossil fuels, but now that those fuels are politically unpopular (because of environmentalism) they are eager to sign up for the free NATO loot.

Donald Trump earned enmity from the political class by insisting that several of these beneficiary countries bear more of the cost of their own defenses. Of course that would have helped to reveal the true price of socialism, and it would have disempowered the political class.

There is also the likelihood that Biden has personally been getting aid money from the US, intended for Ukraine, diverted to himself or to his favorite political causes. Hunter Biden served on the board of a gas company there and made a lot of money even though the only possible use he would have been to them is political. Trump got in trouble for merely asking for this to be investigated. Biden on the other hand actually got a Ukranian official fired for investigating it, and bragged about that firing later.

These facts tend to undercut Journo’s argument even if his argument’s moral judgment of Putin is completely correct.

It’s bad guys versus bad guys.

[tadmjones]

Apparently in the early sixties NATO being a Nazi wasn’t all that bad ?

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

[Easy_Truth]

The Pro-Putin argument seems to be that Russia was aggressed on and that it is retaliating.

But the aggression from Ukraine can only be described as a threat of aggression, rather than actual aggression. In the case of Putin, the aggression is physical.

Now in terms of who benefits right now, wars usually will deliver benefits to many nefarious entities. It always has and always will. To someone who is NOT “in the know”, like myself, Russia attacked and Ukraine. The Ukrainian regime did not fall apart like Iraq. People are willing to die for their country so Ukraine is not a population that wants to join Russia. In other words it does not look like NATO etc. are forcing the Ukrainians to fight for their territory.

So with that in mind, and the mobilization, it would be good to know what an appropriate negotiated settlement would should look like in the eyes of the pro-Russia side.

 

[necrovore]

24 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

So with that in mind, and the mobilization, it would be good to know what an appropriate negotiated settlement would should look like in the eyes of the pro-Russia side.

I suppose I’m concerned that NATO wouldn’t want the war to be settled, because the political class has more money and power when the weapons are flowing than when they are not… and, like bank robbers, they are not good at thinking long-term, or assessing unexpected consequences.

[AlexL]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Apparently in the early sixties NATO being a Nazi wasn’t all that bad ?

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

Just a technical question: was Adolf Heusinger really a member of the Nazi party ? I checked a number of his biographies and found nothing about that.

[tadmjones]

18 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Just a technical question: was Adolf Heusinger really a member of the Nazi party ? I checked a number of his biographies and found nothing about that.

I have no idea , he was injured in the Wolf’s Lair assignation attempt on Hitler , so up until that morning Hitler trusted him , so maybe just Nazi adjacent, good call .

 

As an aside though, do you think a former Wehrmacht official being appointed to head the NATO military arm played into any of the USSR’s paranoia of NATO encroachment ? His tenure did span the Cuban Missile crisis.

[AlexL]

4 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

12 minutes ago, AlexL said:

was Adolf Heusinger really a member of the Nazi party ? 

I have no idea…

Then why do yo call him a Nazi and imply that NATO employed Nazis in command positions ?

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, AlexL said:

Then why do yo call him a Nazi and imply that NATO employed Nazis in command positions ?

Until this morning I had never heard of him , nor could I name any other NATO military commander throughout the history of the organization. But today the algorithm pointed me to an article that mentioned him , having little if even detailed knowledge of NATO actions my impressions of its comings and goings are only shaped by whatever general or casual information floats around in popular culture , basically in the broadest view in the west ‘they’ are pretty much the ‘good guys’.

I would never have guessed that one of Hitler’s former military officers would have been selected for such a post. Do you think the ‘official’  or legal Nazi status as compared to ‘plain ole Wehrmacht officer ‘ is a difference in kind and not simply degree? I would assume that even if he was a member , that that would have been ‘scrubbed’ to allow for more acceptability in the post WW2 west. Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

 

ps I figured when I mentioned it , someone would be triggered ‘he wasn’t a Nazi , he only helped Hitler establish the Third Reich , he had a totally different uniform !’

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I would never have guessed that one of Hitler’s former military officers would have been selected for such a post. Do you think the ‘official’  or legal Nazi status as compared to ‘plain ole Wehrmacht officer ‘ is a difference in kind and not simply degree? I would assume that even if he was a member , that that would have been ‘scrubbed’ to allow for more acceptability in the post WW2 west. Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

The problem here isn’t the idea that a Nazi could attain a very high position in NATO. Interpol had a similar thing happen. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as far as the organization - it doesn’t mean that the organization is at heart a Nazi organization. Knowing that somebody was a Nazi is good blackmail, it keeps them in line.

The problem is, why did you bring it up? I guess you are saying random things, whatever strikes your mind. Or far more likely is that you are directly insinuating that NATO is a Nazi organization with the cover of “I don’t know if he is a Nazi, but he might be!” Alex asked why you did this, to which you only said you ran into the idea. At least answer the question rather than stacking up questions and claims without any point.

[Eiuol]

8 hours ago, necrovore said:

Although NATO did have the stated purpose of defending Europe from the Soviet Union, it had another purpose. The US paid almost the entire cost of NATO.

Yeah totally, NATO is just a scheme to trick the US to subsidize socialism. Nevermind the fact that most European countries are neoliberal mixed economies. After all, if you have allies, why should you be supportive, they should be able to handle their own military! They don’t need help, there is nothing actually threatening Europe. Russia is fine, the Balkans are doing just great; the Soviet Union is gone, there is no war in the Balkans. Everyone knows Russia isn’t actually threatening, so why would even Nordic countries want to be part of NATO? It also explains why Russia was kept out, because… I don’t know, but I did have a chain of logical connecting words between my sentences!

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

I suppose I’m concerned that NATO wouldn’t want the war to be settled, because the political class has more money and power when the weapons are flowing than when they are not… and, like bank robbers, they are not good at thinking long-term, or assessing unexpected consequences.

Right, because capitalist leaning economies - err I mean socialist economies - control the military-industrial complex. The richer classes control the less rich classes. They don’t care about global defense, their only motivation is money.
 

*

What you posted is a narrative, not a set of facts. I’m not contesting your facts, the few that you mentioned. I’m contesting the whole reasoning process.

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

The Pro-Putin argument seems to be that Russia was aggressed on and that it is retaliating.

But the aggression from Ukraine can only be described as a threat of aggression, rather than actual aggression. In the case of Putin, the aggression is physical.

Now in terms of who benefits right now, wars usually will deliver benefits to many nefarious entities. It always has and always will. To someone who is NOT “in the know”, like myself, Russia attacked and Ukraine. The Ukrainian regime did not fall apart like Iraq. People are willing to die for their country so Ukraine is not a population that wants to join Russia. In other words it does not look like NATO etc. are forcing the Ukrainians to fight for their territory.

So with that in mind, and the mobilization, it would be good to know what an appropriate negotiated settlement would should look like in the eyes of the pro-Russia side.

 

The US supported Iraq for decades during their war with Iran. Without that help the Iraqi regime was as weak and prone to disintegration as it was which made it that much more easier to topple. 

In comparison Ukraine still enjoys a full US and most western nations full throated support. Even in the midst of a quasi civil war since 2014, after a coup that resulted in pro NATO , pro EU regime. 

[tadmjones]

42 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

The problem here isn’t the idea that a Nazi could attain a very high position in NATO. Interpol had a similar thing happen. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, as far as the organization - it doesn’t mean that the organization is at heart a Nazi organization. Knowing that somebody was a Nazi is good blackmail, it keeps them in line.

The problem is, why did you bring it up? I guess you are saying random things, whatever strikes your mind. Or far more likely is that you are directly insinuating that NATO is a Nazi organization with the cover of “I don’t know if he is a Nazi, but he might be!” Alex asked why you did this, to which you only said you ran into the idea. At least answer the question rather than stacking up questions and claims without any point.

I brought it because it is at least tangential to my comments on the OP.

I’m not sure if AlexL posted Journo’s essay as an example of a counter point to the realpolitik school’s argument as voiced by Mearsheimer or to endorse Journo’s stance via a critique , he seems to be more a champion of Journo in regard to Tony’s critique.

 

[tadmjones]

Why should military actions in the Balkans or Eastern European countries necessitate global insecurity ? If not for multinational blocs ?

[necrovore]

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Yeah totally, NATO is just a scheme to trick the US to subsidize socialism.

I didn’t say “just.”

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

Nevermind the fact that most European countries are neoliberal mixed economies.

Why “nevermind”? A mixed economy is a mixture of freedom (capitalism) and controls (e.g., socialism or fascism), so this does not rule out what I said.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

After all, if you have allies, why should you be supportive, they should be able to handle their own military!

If two countries agree that each one will defend the other if attacked, then there is no need for money to change hands, even if the attack actually occurs. It might cost money to honor the agreement, but that money would not need to flow from either country to the other.

Maybe after World War II, Europe was too weak to defend itself, and it might have made sense for the US to help it then, but the flow of money continued long after it should have ended, and then it took on a life of its own.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

They don’t need help, there is nothing actually threatening Europe.

What they don’t need is free money or loot.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

They don’t care about global defense, their only motivation is money.

They think they can have both, but they are neglecting the former in their pursuit of the latter.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

What you posted is a narrative, not a set of facts. I’m not contesting your facts, the few that you mentioned. I’m contesting the whole reasoning process.

On what basis? You’re accusing me of saying a lot of things that I didn’t even say.

Also, whether something is a “narrative” or not is beside the point: what matters is whether or not it’s true.

I don’t think you can argue that it isn’t true. Maybe you could argue that it isn’t important, or that it leaves important things out, but I think it’s important.

[Eiuol]

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

I don’t think you can argue that it isn’t true. Maybe you could argue that it isn’t important, or that it leaves important things out, but I think it’s important.

What you did is make some claims, which is not the same as stating facts. The first fact that you mentioned is that NATO was created to defend against the Soviet Union. That’s where stating facts ended.   I can’t argue what you said is not true because it’s a story you made up. So I went along and made a story just like you. It’s actually the same story. I know I said “’ just a scheme” but I should have said “for the most part just a scheme”. 

[necrovore]

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I can’t argue what you said is not true because it’s a story you made up.

“I can’t argue that Newton’s Laws are not true because they are just generalizations that Newton made up…”

(My point being that what you are saying could be applied to any argument whatever and therefore is a rejection of reasoning as such)

[Eiuol]

Made up as in invented, unsubstantiated, fictional, based on hunches, just-so stories, non-objective explanations, etc. 

[AlexL]

17 hours ago, tadmjones said:

19 hours ago, AlexL said:

Then why do yo call him a Nazi and imply that NATO employed Nazis in command positions ?

… an article that mentioned him [Adolf Heusinger] … having little… knowledge of NATO actions my impressions of its comings and goings are only shaped by whatever general or casual information floats around in popular culture, basically in the broadest view in the west ‘they’ [Nazis, presumably] are pretty much the ‘good guys’… Or maybe NATO really is and always been Nazi friendly.

Therefore you identify him as a “Nazi” not because he was literally one, but because of a “popular culture” where NATO is a Nazi/Fascist organization which, quite understandably, supports the neo-Nazi state which is Ukraine - according to the latest and greatest Soviet studies…

[tadmjones]

58 minutes ago, AlexL said:

Therefore you identify him as a “Nazi” not because he was literally one, but because of a “popular culture” where NATO is a Nazi/Fascist organization which, quite understandably, supports the neo-Nazi state which is Ukraine - according to the latest and greatest Soviet studies…

Nope. As I said, the “popular culture” impression I had was a vague understanding and or agreement that NATO was the ‘good guys’ and was surprised to see that a Nazi was once picked as the military commander.