Not super worried from a European perspective, it might even spur on some cooperation in our own union, which I support.
Just a bit nervous for Ukraine... I wish Europe could step up on that front but we just don't have the capacity for it. Which is entirely our own fault, Trump is right to call us out on our reliance on the US. It's our continent we should be the one spearheading this.
Hopefully that will change in the near future. But that doesn't help Ukraine now.
The democrats need to do some serious introspection on their policies and priorities. And perhaps just return to running a white male as candidate...
Oh well at least it's a very clear victory, so no weeks or months of anxiety over the results.
Should not have to worry about US pulling out of NATO. Trump is stupid, but even he realizes that it would not benefit US in a any way. Significantly reducing funding might happen, but hopefully that will make EU countries increase their defense spendings as a reaction.
That assumes that Trump is a rational actor when it comes to these sorts of things, and I'm not sure we can rely on that.
The question is how much of his leaving-NATO rhetoric was sincere, and how much of it was empty threats to try to get other NATO countries to devote more money toward defense.
Europe in total has contributed twice as much to Ukraine as USA. And much of that is spending that actually affects their economy, not just “we’re going to give a billion dollars of equipment that we were going to have to replace soon anyway”. I’m not trying to dismiss USAs contribution here but it’s a fact that much of it is really more of a program to modernise the stock of US military weapons and ammunition, which incidentally frees up old stock for Ukraine.
Also keep in mind that Europe now supports Ukraine by setting up arms production within Ukraine, which gives more weapons per dollar spent than donating weapons made in USA or Europe.
That said, while European military spending has improved a lot since the invasion, there’s still a bit further to go and it’s not such a bad thing if Europe is forced to become more self-reliant militarily.
Will be very short sighted for USA though. They benefit on so many levels from Europe being so dependent on USA.
Will be very short sighted for USA though. They benefit on so many levels from Europe being so dependent on USA.
This is the part that I don't get with the USA's recent obsessions with isolationism. One of the reasons the US is so rich is because it is a world power with a lot of loyal allies. We align a lot of our policies with the US when we are asked (see blocking ASML exports to China).
If the US is not willing to step up for its allies [1], it becomes a regional power, and the loss of influence will result in worse economical outcomes.
China is happy to fill the void.
[1] Also don't forget that (most) allies stepped up when the US asked (Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.), even when much of their population thought it was not the best idea.
From the British side of things, we are now a ballistics rag doll.
We had Brexit, a catastrophe in itself. And with that we've sold ourselves to the US for "alliance" means; meaning that we will be dragged through everything the US wants.
When we were tied to the EU, at least we had a some sort solidarity.
Well, you and Germany are one of the few influential western countries left that has some sort of stable center-left government. Almost everything else is rightwing conservative, neoliberal or slowly descending into fascism.
Spain has a left-wing government, Poland is back to being centrist after getting rid of PiS, Switzerland has its own distinct government where all major parties are represented in perpetuity, ...
Also to call the current German government "stable" is... a choice.
Poland isn't stable either. PiS may come back at any point. You'd think that consolidating power, destroying relations with all neighbours except for the totalitarian Hungary, and implementing a total abortion ban would do them in, but no. PiS can run a campaign entirely on anti-LGBT and anti-immigration rethoric and win. Poland turned into Florida every recent election. The anti-LGBT nonsense is already coming back ahead of the next presidential election.
> AfD is set up for a big win, so that will be that.
The AfD is currently polling at about 18% of the vote. Alarming, yes, but nobody wants to work with them. The next government will likely be CDU led, with either the SPD or the Greens as a junior partner.
You have to find some good in all things and I think this is the most likely good. Other countries and continents realizing it's time to move on from America and start to stand on their own two feet.
I'm really tired of American being the center of everything, especially after this fiasco. It would be nice if it was a more progressive country for a change.
By progressive I mean, a country who believes in climate change, renewables and nuclear and women's reproductive rights.
> And perhaps just return to running a white male as candidate...
This isn’t why people aren’t voting dem. Did you forgot that Obama was elected? People don’t want to vote dem because Dems have moved significantly to the left and are supporting crazy policies.
Obama was elected because that election followed 8 straight years of Republicans in power, in which they squandered the world’s sympathy after 9/11 by starting two retarded wars, opening guantanamo, curtailing freedoms, going after journalists etc. Bush Jr. and the GOP was lambasted 24/7 at home and abroad by the likes of the Daily Show, (much more mildly but) not unlike Trump is today.
Obama was charismatic and his platform of hope and change was powerful, but it did hinge on the GOP being absolutely unelectable. Kamala Harris may have won this year if Trump had won in 2020, although it’s easy to imagine the Dems squandering that as well, by explicitly running on not-being-the-other-guy, which Obama didn’t do.
We basically had the same scenario then. Trump should be easy to beat if the Dems put up anyone with charisma who seemed normal and likeable. Kamala didn’t have these things and many believe she didn’t deserve the nomination in the first place because of how it went down (no primaries). Dems also pandered to the far left way too much and weirded out many never trumpers and independents but that’s another issue entirely.
Trump is wrong in that. Europe relies on the US, because the American world order is built that way. That's what the US has traditionally wanted. They are the hegemon that maintains the world order and pays for it. Europe usually supports the US, both for ideological reasons and because it benefits from the American world order.
But if the US is no longer committed to their world order, I can see the return of a more selfish Europe. One that is willing to work with both the US and BRICS and does not automatically favor either.
> But if the US is no longer committed to their world order, I can see the return of a more selfish Europe. One that is willing to work with both the US and BRICS and does not automatically favor either.
I don't see this happening unfortunately. The much more likely scenario is that the US diplomacy in EU will adopt a partisan stance, favoring far-right parties. Anyone who has followed far-right EU movements in the last two decades can't seriously believe that US conservatives talking about isolationism means they will stop pushing their views in Europe.
What you call "far-right" is not a unified movement. Nationalism is one of those ideologies where ideological alignment can make you just as easily allies as enemies. If the US wants to work with European nationalists, it must simultaneously increase military support to Ukraine, isolate Russia even further, restore normal relations with Russia, and make cheap Russian natural gas available again.
So far, the policy differences between the different far-right parties in Europe hasn't really prevented them from cooperating. Besides, a lot of the meddling by US conservatives pushes on specific issues, so they don't mind funding two parties with opposed views on orthogonal topics.
> So far, the policy differences between the different far-right parties in Europe hasn't really prevented them from cooperating
They literally have. France's RN officially stopped collaborating with the German AfD over the latter being too "extreme". Now they sit in different fractions of the EU parliament.
That is the one such development I can think of in recent history. We'll see if this becomes more common as far-right parties become more mainstream, but I'm not holding my breath.
On the other hand, I've seen US-influenced and Russia-influenced movements happily cooperate for years now. There's been some tensions over which side to support when the war in Ukraine broke out, but so far it hasn't prevented these same groups clashing on this specific issue to cooperate on other issues.
Funny how "far right" parties are always the fault of foreign countries and never the result of the parties in power fucking over the local population year after year.
> The democrats need to do some serious introspection on their policies and priorities. And perhaps just return to running a white male as candidate...
Considering that one of the main points of Trump's campaign was a swift end to Ukraine's war, and considering the large vote margin by which he won, I believe the lesson the democrats should learn is that most USAers don't want the USA to be involved in foreign wars.
By definition the democratic party should be able to read the population, right?
>By definition the democratic party should be able to read the population, right?
In the 2016 elections, they literally went to court to argue that they are a private company and their internal processes (eg. the primaries) don't need to be democratic.
This is why GP is nervous: Trump's "swift end" will likely be trying to broker a deal where Ukraine gives up all the disputed territory, and Russia effectively wins, validating Putin's approach to territorial expansion.
Why would Russia want the EU dead. They were selling 10's of billions of dollars of oil and gas to it each year. Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny.
Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
> Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security, having being invaded numerous times over the centuries and wants to keep control of its own economic destiny.
In soviet Russua, Russia is the one constantly being invaded.
> Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
So if i'm following you correctly, Russia's nuclear arsenal wasn't enough to provide security. Only thing we haven't tried for more security is to have every European nation be in control of their own nuclear arsenal?
Its a bold claim, but by golly you've snorted enough foreign-sourced talking points that you might actually be right!
Russia is however a bit paranoid about its own security,
Every rational actor (including Putin) knows that not a single NATO country is interested in invading Russia. He might have been worried about a democratic uprising in his country like Ukraine in 2014, but given how much an autocracy Russia has become, that's pretty unlikely now.
Provide a way where security of both Europe and Russia can be provided for and peace will quickly follow.
It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property (mostly former Soviet states). He has wars in Ukraine, Chechnya, and Georgia to back it.
Putin's word in a peace treaty will be worth as much as him saying that he wouldn't invade Ukraine up till the invasion. Nada. The only thing that will work is military deterrence.
>It's very clear that Putin wants to annex countries that he considers Russia's property
Nothing more than fantasy that justifies the warhawk stance among liberals. It is completely disconnected from reality. What Russia wants is safety from NATO. NATO in Ukraine would have been a strategic noose from which Russia would never escape. Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace. Ukraine with NATO aspirations lead to this war. The simplest answer is the right one in this case.
Russian conquest wars in the last 30 years: Chechnya 1994–1996 and 1999–2009, Georgia 2008 (Abkhazia and South Ossetia) & Ukraine (2014 - today).
> Ukrainian neutrality lead to peace.
When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status. It only invited the Russians as they perceived it as weakness. Ukriaine's effort to join NATO was in hope of gaining a defense umbrella.
To call them "conquest wars" is just a-historical self-serving nonsense.
>When Russians invaded Donbas in 2014, Ukraine actually had a non-aligned, neutral status.
They had a non-aligned status up until the moment their elected government was overthrown. At that point Ukraine's status is undefined. How was the government overthrown you ask? A US regime change operation: https://www.reddit.com/r/UkraineRussiaReport/comments/1ghs32...
Government was overthrown in February 2014, the Ukrainian parliament renounced Ukraine's non-aligned status in December 2014 while Russia annexed Crimea in February/March 2014 and attacked Donbas in April 2014 - all while while Ukraine was still neutral and non-aligned.
> US regime change operation
I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.
LE:
And you'd need some strong proof considering that everything that happened afterwards completely vindicated Ukrainian people's fear of Russia and their desire to get closer to the West.
As someone who lives in Eastern Europe and who also lived through a bloody revolution to get out from under the Russian boot - let me tell you: we don't need external influences to desire to live in peace and freedom, to pursue our happiness and prosperity. We are just like you, people of the West, in that regard. We don't want to live under Russian occupation any more than you do and we are willing to pay the blood price for the privilege.
The point at which neutral status is officially renounced is of no consequence. When the existing polity is replaced, any agreements or expectations of the behavior of the nation are moot. Hence their status being "undefined".
>I haven't seen any actual proof for that, only speculation like what you are linking to.
Yes, it turns out sometimes you need to make inferences and compare historical events and M-Os to get a clear picture of what happened out of the public eye. The fact that some people can't even entertain the notion that the US had a hand in Ukraine's revolution just underscores your psychological need to feel like moral heroes while calling for escalation in the war. But there is enough circumstantial evidence (like the Nuland intercept) that paints a very clear picture to those who aren't taken in by motivated reasoning.
Safety from NATO means being in a strong defensive position with respect to NATOs ability to project force. This isn't just about proximity, but about control of strategic resources. The US pushed Turkey through NATO ascension because access to the Black Sea was deemed strategically valuable in an eventual war with the USSR. Russia needs to counter that threat and losing the port in Crimea would be a strategic blunder.
They have had the port in Crimea since 2014. They still wanted more.
Hell, when they started the war, it was supposedly about "demilitarization". By now they have officially annexed four more regions of Ukraine (well, the parts they control) in addition to Crimea, two of which wasn't even occupied until 2022.
The current status quo was unsustainable. Crimea was indefensible without a land bridge through the Donbass. Ukraine was attacking Crimea by cutting off its water supply. Ukraine was also being trained and armed by the US. Time was against Russia in terms of a conflict with Ukraine being on favorable terms. NATO in Ukraine meant that Crimea would be lost eventually. Control of the Donbass gives Russia control of Crimea's water supply while allowing a proper defense.
You know, it's almost funny how Russian "national patriots" keep saying that NATO will attack any time now for... 30 years at least? I remember reading books about this in late 90s.
Yet, somehow, it's Russia that keeps invading neighboring countries. Who then scramble to join NATO because they don't want to be next.
Have y'all considered that maybe if you tried not constantly trying to rebuild your empire on the backs of your neighbors by invading and occupying their territory, you would actually have that regional stability and peace that you claim to seek? Regardless of who is and isn't in NATO even?
30 Years is nothing on the timescales of geopolitics. How long has China been talking about unifying with Taiwan? Yet no one is under any illusion that China won't eventually make a move against Taiwan. The claim that Russia should consider NATO expansion irrelevant to its security is pure gaslighting.
This is just one example of many if you Google. And don't bother trying to parse words to claim this isn't really an example of claiming NATO expansion is benign to Russia's security, it'll just confirm you are engaging in bad-faith.
No, its not at all different. Like I said, bad faith.
Edit: Lol didn't recognize your username. If you didn't begin your engagements on such an adversarial footing, you might get more constructive replies.
"And even more precisely: it's a claim that absolutely no one makes."
"So you're gaslighting yourself, in effect."
Come now, those are very much adversarial.
Regarding the main point of contention: Russia complains about NATO expansion raising security concerns and the response from NATO/US representatives is "NATO is defensive pact", "Russia has nothing to fear from NATO", "This is a new NATO... Its enemy is not Russia", and so on. This list could go on and on. But the denial of NATO presenting a security concern to Russia is just an assertion that NATO is benign to Russia's security. In other words, NATO expansion is irrelevant to Russian security. These terms all mean the same thing in the context of whether NATO and NATO expansion is a security threat to Russia.
Seriously, this is all just the basic meaning of words. If it's not obvious to you, then I don't know what to tell you. Perhaps consult ChatGPT.
The first statement (the one that began the engagement) obviously was not.
And ironically -- your misinterpretation of that statement (as adversarial when it clearly wasn't) is exactly what I was referring to in the second statement. By which was meant, in somewhat longer form: "It seems you're going out of your way to read adversarial intent when there simply isn't any in there."
The only time someone says "absolutely no one thinks/says/does X" is when they are politely accusing someone of lying or bullshitting. So yes, very much adversarial. This should all just be so obvious.
>The tumor is benign
You left off the contextualizing clause which just changes the meaning of the sentence. "The tumor is benign/irrelevant to your continued ability to play the piano" has the same meaning with either phrasing.
As to the main point of contention -- I think a fair description of the consensus view of the situation, among people who have the temerity to disagree with you, goes about like this:
"Of course NATO enlargement was something of an annoyance to Russia. Specifically it can be taken as a signal that NATO might confront Russia's own moves for influence in say, the Balkans, North Africa or the Middle East -- places that, last we checked, are not Russia. It may even choose to involve itself in direct conflict with Russia's allies, such as Serbia, for good reasons or bad. One could also argue that it threatens Russia's 'brand' and prestige in softer ways; and one could even argue that the very existence of NATO is kind of an insult to Russia."
"But every rational actor knows that NATO was never going to actually attack Russia, itself, without cause. Or even threaten to do so. Certainly not in the sense of an all-out, tanks-across-the-steppes assault, or a pre-emptive nuclear strike that Russia pretends to believe is the ultimate goal of its expansion."
"Nor is there any long-range plan in the works to station forces of any kind on Russia's borders that could potentially threaten or signal the capability for such an invasion, in for extortion purposes (in essence), as Russia's current regime also pretends to believe. You simply will not find a shred of evidence for any line of thinking in support of such a plan."
"All that pretense is just that -- pretense and propaganda. It's just a foil that its various incarnations of its regime have used, over decade, first to justify its continued occupation of the Warsaw Pact countries, and now, to distract from its actual reasons for its invading Ukraine (and manacing other countries). And to get its people to sign up for the endless meat-grinder war it managed to create for them there, once its delusional expectations of a quick, decisive victory evaporated on first contact with reality."
So if people say things like "NATO's expansion is benign to Russia's security concerns", that's the framing in which that sentiment is most likely meant. They may be oversimplifying slightly, but not by much.
This is a false narrative that Putin propagates all the time (besides that Ukraine is run by nazis) and is not supported by history. He did attack Georgia and Chechnya. There was no danger at all of these countries joining NATO anytime soon.
At any rate, it has been a severe miscalculation on Putin's part. He thought they could take Ukraine in days and the aggression led Finland and Sweden to join NATO.
It's weird to see people say stuff like this. Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world? Do you not find it at all plausible? The US has a very long history of doing this very sort of thing[1]. Do you think the three letter agencies have just been sitting on their hands in recent decades? I just don't get how people can engage in such willful ignorance.
I can simultaneously find something plausible and see that there's historical precedent for it, but not accept unsubstantiated fantasy stories made up on the internet.
The reasoning you're expressing here is basically: "Heck it's plausible, right? Therefore it might as well have happened. There's no need to actually substantiate that it did. It suffices to just have a gut feeling that it happened."
Nevermind the Jeffrey Sachs interview that no one has time to watch. His take has been debunked elsewhere. What matters here is your own reasoning here, which is incredibly specious. If you can't see the obvious flaw in the argument that you laid down, then I don't know what to tell you.
BTW, here's another helpful suggestion: If you're on your favorite website some day, looking for answers to what's going in the world, and you see the top-posted comment for some article or interview that you thought really rocked is some obviously useless, snarky drivel like the following (taken from the Reddit link you posted):
Putin just woke up one day, stumbled his toe or something, and decided to invade Ukraine.
Then that should perhaps suggest to you that, far from being your friend, that website, and the articles and videos that get top-posted to it, are probably kinda dodgy. And that maybe you should taking the content you find there with a heaping portion of salt. And that you might want to try fact-checking the content and arguments you find there, instead simply believing it all outright. Or better yet, just stop wasting your time on that website altogether.
Like, are you completely ignorant of the history of US initiated regime change around the world?
I know all about it, and can probably cite dozens of instances off the top of my head. But none of that history translates to evidence that US-initiated regime change actually happened in a given country X, in year Y. It's just innuendo, nothing more.
That's a lot of words just to say nothing of substance. If you want to make a substantive point--feel free. But I have no interest in engaging with this kind of mindless slop. And regarding the subreddit, if you don't know anything about it, you shouldn't draw any conclusions from the snarky comments you happen to see.
It's not just that one comment - it's nearly every comment. The fact that that nearly every thread on that subreddit is basically a giant echo chamber should also be telling you something.
Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.
Yes its an echo chamber, but not by fiat of the mods. It exists as an alternative to the pro-Ukraine echo chamber that is strictly enforced everywhere else on reddit. That the sub ends up skewed pro Russian is just a reflection of it being the only place on reddit where news and takes that aren't 100% Ukraine cheerleading are allowed to be posted.
>Criticisms of Sachs's take are easy to find, and quite devastating. Whether you care to look into the matter is up to you.
If you didn't want a substantive engagement on these points, why did you bother to reply? Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine? Don't you think there's enough of that on social media?
Just to promote the sanctioned opinion on Ukraine?
My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time. Or who are at least from the region, seem knowledgeable, and definitely are not assholes or otherwise have some major axe to grind.
I also try to ignore nearly all social media, to whatever extent possible.
But hey, that's just me. You do you. I wouldn't say I didn't want a substantive engagement, but it's getting late, and I think we've both said enough. We just disagree. We didn't start this war, and in the broader picture, I suspect we're probably more or less on the same basic side of the basic moral issues.
>My own strategy is to completely ignore what the "sanctioned opinion" (whatever that means) on a given topic is, and to work the factual chronology and reasonably verifiable reporting or statements best as I can. That, and whenever possible, to talk with people who were on the ground or reasonably close to it at the time.
Great. I take a similar approach.
It's unfortunate you felt the need to begin the conversation with snark and irrelevant verbiage. But I can understand being jaded from wasting time engaging with people who aren't interested in substantively examining an issue.
Despite the missed opportunity, I am interested in engaging with what you consider a solid rebuttal to Sachs' points mentioned in the linked video. Feel free to offer a resource if you have one handy. I won't respond to it with a rebuttal or anything along those lines. It's purely for my own edification.
You may also want to take a closer look at this guy, on whose program Sachs chose to appear multiple times in 2022 -- noted for among other things calling for Kyiv to be "destroyed", and Kharkiv to be "wiped off the face of the earth":
If EU dies, Russia will keep selling its oil and gas to European countries, but the latter will be more divided when it comes to negotiating prices. As a large business, you want your customers to be as powerless as possible so that you can jack up prices as high as you can.
All true, and the EU complicit in all of those. Maybe not by choice (see remark about sovereignty at the end), but complicit nonetheless. You also forgot Syria, Yemen, Yugoslavia and probably a few others as well.
> Russia owns Trump and Russia wants the EU dead.
Sorry, but this is not Reddit.
> By no means should the EU get cosy with the US.
The EU has no choice other than be "cosy" with the US. It's called Pax Americana.
In simple terms, the deal is this and always has been this since WW2 ended: the EU has traded political sovereignty for security, to and from the US.
Russia wants Trump as his backhand man and that's what they got. America wants freedom yet at the same time they're happy to accept brokerage from a
man who dreams of an neo-USSR.
> I can't fathom where you got that from.
world peace was a rush mix of words. What I mean at least they held stability of the world stage.
> EU is complicit
I'm not saying the EU is a saint. The EU has an agenda and evils of its own. But as a figurehead and representation of many countries up on the world stage it held a positive power.
Countries could count on the nation for relief unlike any other.
Just a bit nervous for Ukraine... I wish Europe could step up on that front but we just don't have the capacity for it. Which is entirely our own fault, Trump is right to call us out on our reliance on the US. It's our continent we should be the one spearheading this.
Hopefully that will change in the near future. But that doesn't help Ukraine now.
The democrats need to do some serious introspection on their policies and priorities. And perhaps just return to running a white male as candidate...
Oh well at least it's a very clear victory, so no weeks or months of anxiety over the results.