Bring out the bon bons, the bubbles, and the praise filled memoranda for that old alliance. At the three-quarter century mark of its existence, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is showing itself to be a greater nuisance than ever, gossiping, meddling, and dreaming of greater acts of mischief under the umbrella of manufactured insecurity. It is also being coquettish to certain countries (Ukraine, figures prominently in the wooing stakes) making promises it can never make good.
Its defenders, as is to be expected, see something very different before the mirror. They call the alliance a call for freedom, its enduring importance a reassuring presence. The more appropriate response would be convenience, the assurance of an alliance with collective obligations that would, given the circumstances, compel all parties to wage war against the aggressor. In terms of alliances, this is one programmed for conflict.
NATO is a crusted visage of a problem long dead. In the Cold War theatre, it featured in the third act of every play involving the United States and the USSR, a performance that always took place under the threat of a nuclear cloud. Any confrontation in Europe’s centre could have resulted in the pulverization of an entire continent. For its part, Moscow had the Warsaw Pact countries.
At the end of the Cold War, NATO had effectively ceased to be relevant as a deterrent force on the European continent. A new cut of clothing was sought for the members. Rather than passing into retirement, it became, in essence, a broader auxiliary force of US power. In the absence of a countering Soviet Union, the organisation adopted a gonzo approach to international security.
In 1999, the alliance became a killing machine for evangelical humanitarianism, ostensibly seeking to protect one ethnic group against the predations of another in Kosovo. In 2011, it involved itself in military operations against a country posing no threat to any members of the alliance. NATO, along with a steady air attacks and missile barrages, enforced the no-fly zone over Libya as the country was ushered to imminent, post-Qaddafi collapse. When the International Security Force (ISAF) completed its ill-fated mission in Afghanistan in 2015, NATO was again on the scene.
NATO’s Strategic Concept document released at the end of June 2022 took much sustenance from the Ukraine conflict while warning about China’s ambitions, a fairly crude admission that it wished to move beyond its territorial limits. “The People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values.” Why such an alliance should worry about such eastward ambitions illustrates the wayward dysfunction of the association.
On April 27, 2022 the then UK Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and ultimately doomed prime minister pushed the view that NATO needed to be globalised. Her Mansion House speech at the Lord Mayor’s Easter Banquet was one of those cat-out-of-the-bag disclosures that abandons pretence revealing, in its place, a disturbing reality.
After making it clear that NATO’s “open door policy” was “sacrosanct”, Truss also saw security in global terms, another way of promoting a broader commitment to international mischief. She rejected “the false choice between Euro-Atlantic security and Indo-Pacific security. In the modern world we need both.” A “global NATO” was needed. “By that I don’t mean extending the membership to those from other regions. I mean that NATO must have a global outlook, ready to tackle global threats.”
Praise for the alliance tends to resemble an actuarial assessment about risk and security. Consider this from former US ambassador to NATO, Douglas Lute. NATO, in his mind, is “the single most important geostrategic advantage over any potential adversary or competitor.” With pride, he notes that “Russia and China have nothing comparable. The 32 allies in NATO train together, operate together, live together under a standing unified command structure, making them far more capable militarily than any ad-hoc arrangement.”
There is nothing to suggest in these remarks that NATO was one of the single most provocative security arrangements that helped precipitate a war that torments and convulses eastern Europe. Many a Washington mandarin has been of such a view: moving closer to Russia’s borders was not merely an act of diplomatic condescension but open military provocation.
One should, with tireless consistency, refer to the State Department’s doyen of Soviet studies, George F. Kennan, on this very point. In 1997, he issued the appropriate warning about the decision to expand NATO towards the Russian border: “Such a decision may be expected to inflame nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
This speared provocation is repeated in the 2024 NATO Declaration made in Washington this month. It is effaced of history and context, Ukraine being a tabula rasa in the international system with no role other than that of glorified victimhood, a charity case abused in the international system. “We stand in unity and solidarity in the face of a brutal war of aggression on the European continent and a critical time for our security,” states the declaration.
Kyiv is promised aid under the NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine program, though such provision is, in the manner of an all-promising eunuch, crowned by a caveat: “NSATU will not, under international law, make NATO a party to the conflict.” The prospects for future conflict are guaranteed by the promise, however empty, that, “Ukraine’s future is in NATO.”
The declaration goes on to speak on the “interoperable” and “integrated” nature of Kyiv’s operations with the alliance. “As Ukraine continues this vital work, we will continue to support it on its irreversible path to full Euro-Atlantic integration, including NATO membership.”
NATO’s warring streak was further affirmed at the Washington summit by injudicious remarks about trying to make it “Trump proof” – a testament to the sleepless nights the strategists must be having at the prospect of a presidency that may change the order of things. He is bound to have gotten wind of that fact. Aggravated, the Republican contender may well withdraw the US imperium from the alliance’s clutches. In Washington’s absence, the NATO family might retreat into fractious insignificance. The ensuing anarchy, rather than stimulating war, may well do the opposite.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
One would be led to believe that the author is on the side of authoritarians, Trump and Putin vs NATO and EU, using the risible RWNJ Truss as a (credible) source? Previously citing Mearsheimer, linked to Charles Koch Foundation and Putin’s Valdai Club; in plain sight?
Not only does this concur with the views of Abbott’s chum PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban, Farage, Bannon, Vance et al., i.e. Anglo anti-imperialist tankies and RW grifters masquerading as Central European geopolitical experts, but opposed to liberal democracy, the EU and transition away from fossil fuels, while avoiding informed analysis?
Difficult to comprehend when the writer, an academic whose career is based on research credibility, ignores all European expertise on NATO and including from actual (voluntary) member states, why?
Because their expertise and credibility too easily ‘trumps’ these Anglo RW authoritarian and ultra conservative Anglo narratives?
Andrew Smith never tires of trying his favourite guilt by association trick, without a shred of evidence as usual.
He thinks it’s a substitute for having nothing substantial to say.
But he does say, (not for the first time) that the author “ ignores all European expertise on NATO…”, the implication being that Europe is united in the continuation of the sacrificing of Ukrainian forces in the interests of US imperial ambitions.
Europe is not united on this.
It would be hard to find a more credible source on this matter than General Harald Kuyat, ex-head of the NATO Military Committee, chief military officer in NATO, head of the NATO—Ukraine Council under the Council of Chiefs of General Staff, and Chairman of the Russia—NATO Council. Kuyat has stated in regard to the peace settlement worked out between Ukraine and Russia just a couple of weeks after the start of the war, and which was scuppered by the West, “This makes the Western intervention, which prevented an early end to the war, even more disastrous for Ukraine.”
Then there’s the statements from Jacques Baud, an intelligence and security consultant and former NATO military analyst, who was on the ground in Ukraine in 2014 monitoring the flow of arms into Donbass for NATO.
He states “But just after signing the Minsk 1 Agreements, the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a massive anti-terrorist operation against the Donbass. Poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat in Debaltsevo, which forced them to engage in the Minsk 2 Agreements. It is essential to recall here that Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements did not provide for the separation or independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Agreements (there are very, very, very few of those who actually have) will note that it is written in all letters that the status of the Republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the Republics, for an internal solution to the Ukraine.”
Can you see what was not openly stated there?
In 2014 NATO took part in an illegal military operation that started a civil war. That is absolutely sensational, but how many in the West know of it?
Without NATO involvement and encouragement, this matter might well have been settled between Ukraine and the regions seeking autonomy, and hundreds of thousands of deaths would have been avoided.
Dr Kampmark’s position that NATO is an alliance looking for a war is beyond dispute.
Thank you Steve, for an informed and rational response to the first commentator off the rank’s criticism of Binoy Kampmark’s well-founded analysis of the malignant entity known as NATO; an outfit that if ever there was one, has long outlived its putative usefulness.
It’s telling how men in military suits with expertise in matters of maiming, killing, destroying, along with laying waste to the collective endeavours of mankind continue to cast a hypnotic spell over their (so-called) political masters who enable the flow of the billions of dollars necessary to keep these killing machines alive & active.
What would a world look like if all funding for military activity ceased and those billions (trillions?) were diverted into measures for peaceful activities; education, housing, welfare, shoring up the planet’s infrastructure against the burgeoning ravages of the consequences of global warming, warehousing a safer place for humans to exist along with protecting and expanding what is left of the natural world and its denizens?
Perhaps,at some point, it may come to pass…
Good point Canguro.
If we in Oz did not spend $100million per day on the military, we could live in paradise.
Andrew Smith needs to engage with the arguments put by those with whom he disagrees.
Rattling off all his pet hates is not good enough.
So Russia and (particularly) Putin have only benign or even benevolent intentions towards the rest of the world? They are a danger to no-one?
I must be imagining that invasion of Ukraine and all the resultant (and ongoing) death and damage …
leefe, he’ll be even worse if Trump gets in again.
He’ll do whatever he wants while Trump cheers him on from the boundary line.
∆ Most of Russia’s former Warsaw Pact allies have joined NATO.
∆ Several formerly non aligned/neutral countries have joined NATO.
∆ No country has left NATO
It seems that those closest to Russia, don’t trust Putin, which is probably prudent.
Those that have experienced Russian domination don’t wish to chance returning to being a colony of Russia.
Roswell:
Indeed. Same with Israel vs Palestine.
Off topic, apols, no environmental post currently active:
re. the 2021 BBC documentary Wild Weather: Our World Under Threat; a couple of observations.
The Glasgow Climate Summit (COP26) in November 2021 had as a key objective the reining in of global warming to 1.5C increase over baseline (pre-industrial) by the end of this century.
That figure was breached within the last year.
And Prof. Michael Mann, an American climatologist and geophysicist, had this to say:
“If you were going to pick a continent that’s the worst possible place for human beings to live in the face of climate change, it would be Australia…. so Australia in a sense is sort of a poster child for what the rest of the planet is going to be dealing with in the years ahead, if we fail to get this problem under control.”
As noted, three years have passed since the release of that doco, which, per footage shown, was a catalogue of horror stories on climate-related disasters; fires, floods, drought, cyclones, pestilence per mice plagues in NSW following rains after years of drought and explosions in the little rodent’s numbers… eventually brought under control by the farmers themselves destroying their own crops – burning their grain, their haystacks and so on.
Three years, in which as anybody who’s been paying attention would know that the emissions of CO2 and methane have not been reined in, that ocean temperatures continue to rise, along with mean atmospheric temp, that the Big Oil companies are still extracting full-steam ahead, and that the fat lady has yet to sing.
It feels somewhat deflationary, but if Nostradamus was still around, I think he’d be saying something like ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet, folks.’
We might be righteous, irritated, moved, accurate, but, NATO has not been “used” intelligently in recent decades, and peace, legality, sense, have been ignored and betrayed. We tiny mortals have seen (or could) ages where people like us have been eliminated, ignored, overlooked, liquidated by huge created aggregated bodies, seen as above the law in any sense. The British Empre, Holy (hah) Roman Empire, Czardom, USA security bodies are just some, and NATO is such an evil. Of course it was seen as a necessity. Of course modern nations and their ancestral bodies will find means of survival, as did those now in NATO who found Hitler a reluctant better choice than Stalin. The UNO was a good dream, wasn’t it? World peace is a good idea. Trump, Biden, Putin, so many defectives, are not part of a “good idea” for peace, and Military, Commercal, industrial forces still thrive. But, let us talk on. Who can facilitate peace? Who will compromise, discuss, avoid silly and fatal vengefulness and a chance of short term gain but no peace for the betrayed ignored, powerless ones, like US?
For those who cannot bring themselves to face the idea that this was not all Russia’s doing, Jacques Baud has stated “In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public, we in the West deliberately hid the fact that the war actually started on February 16. From the 16th, the artillery shelling of the population of Donbass increased dramatically, as the daily reports of the OSCE observers show.”
In other words, Ukraine was attacking their own citizens to whom they had twice given an undertaking to work out the details of autonomy within Ukraine.
Europe has a lot to answer for here. Baud again — “Just after Zelensky indicated his readiness to talk with Russia on 25 February, as reported in the Kiev Independent, the European Union decided two days later to provide €450M in arms to Ukraine. The same happened in March. As soon as Zelensky indicated he wanted to have talks with Vladimir Putin on 21 March, the European Union decided to double its military aid to €1 billion on 23 March.”
These things are never clear-cut.
As I said above, without NATO involvement and encouragement, this matter might well have been settled between Ukraine and the regions seeking autonomy, and hundreds of thousands of deaths would have been avoided.
Ukraine is being used by both sides for their own ‘end game’. Pushing NATO towards Russia’s borders made the old paranoid Soviet bear very grumpy and it did not like having it’s buffer zone from western decadence being encroached upon. Putin did warn that he likened it to being poked with a stick and being of Russian mind set with ex-Soviet paranoia tossed in from his KGB days, his automatic response was to play his own game plan first. Standard Russian tactics, strike first.
Let’s be truthful. Russia does not want to be ‘friends’ with the west. It sees us at best as adversaries to be kept at arm’s length, business associates when necessary, but never let your guard down against them. Russia views America as it’s moral enemy and has no intention of cooling the lack of detente currently engulfing us, bringing us as closely to the cold war of the 60s as we have ever been. Putin will not back down and if Ukraine is given NATO status it will only escalate the ongoing conflict to even more brutal steps.
F..k knows what will happen there if/when the orange menace gets in to office again! Look out world!!
I’m far from well read on the history of Russia with the Europeans, but for several hundred years it would seem that whilst Russia has reached out to the Europeans on many occasions to obtain assistance in managing its vast and inhospitable lands and mostly peasant population, and the innumerable threats to its borders and culture, Europe has been less than reliable in its dealings.
Russia has, for the purpose of trade sought access to the south, either via the Mediterranean or Indian Ocean, but has always been thwarted by the Europeans. From Russia’s point of view, the old unruly actors / aspirants included, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden, the Ottoman Turks, Germany / Denmark / Norway and China. The Russia / Ukraine shape-shift was eternally meddled with. Old Russia emulating the reach of the Roman Empire, had a particularly close (cultural) relationship with French royalty, and a weird relationship with the dubious British. The ever shape-shifting Russian royalty, like the royals of Europe, were interested in their domains, only for the purpose of extraction and enslavement of their populations for the purpose of self-aggrandisement.
The Russians and their Eastern Orthodoxy, having sought backing from the Europeans against the Ottomans, were not successful, with Britain, France and Italy preferring the Ottomans so as to obtain a balance of power (through Muslims and Roman Catholics) in the region, and securing Britain’s interest in India. The Crimean War with the Ottomans attacking Russia ensued. Russia repelled the Ottomans, but the French and British fleets entered the Black Sea and concerned about Scandinavia, blockaded Russia in the Baltic. All leading to massive economic loss for Russia.
Like for the folk of France, it would seem the only solution was a people’s revolution and establishment of a people’s republic. But different from France, Russia’s ability over a huge territory to marshal its intellectuals and its hugely diverse mostly peasant population into a meaningful whole, was usurped by disastrous military control and corruption.
Europe stood back blinking, but soon (Britain, France & Italy) hugely betrayed Russia again (citing post-revolution instability), through the lengthy roll-ons of and beyond the Sykes-Picot agreements divvying up the Middle-East Arab regions, with eyes on resources, particularly oil. It could fairly readily be seen as a battle for supremacy of the empires. And with the USA entering the fray, it would all continue disastrously through to WWII and beyond.
Allied Europe and the USA buttered up Russia’s madman to sacrifice 20 million Russians to the defeat of Hitler’s Germany. Despite this, the divvy up of Germany into the Western and Eastern Blocs, and the following 1947 Truman Doctrine (preferring democracies against communism (authoritarianism)), the establishment of NATO, and the Russia / China splits related to ideology and loans (after Mao’s ill-conceived but understandable response to the years of horrendous incursions by Europe and USA), the agitation continued.
Given the long history of Europe’s duplicity, and the USA’s provocations, and despite numerous efforts by Russia, including by Gorbachev, it’s really no surprise that as Russia deconstructed the USSR, that an actor such as Putin would arise, backed by the old guard of Russia’s military and secret service.
To think that in the vast complexities involved, especially with Ukraine, the Cossacks and Tatars usually pawns in the games, that contemporary pundits of the ‘west’ refer only back to 2014 seems to be a ludicrous simplistic convenience. And it ought be no surprise that China quietly stands beside Russia.
I am not for a moment backing Putin Russia’s destructive move into Ukraine or Georgia and Chechniya nor its provocations and usury in Central Asia and North / Central Africa, but neither do I see any lasting tangible moves to deescalation and detente from the ‘west’, particularly the USA, just more provocations and proxy wars from all sides.
Clakka, you wrote — “I’m far from well read on the history of Russia with the Europeans, but for several hundred years it would seem that whilst Russia has reached out to the Europeans on many occasions to obtain assistance in managing its vast and inhospitable lands and mostly peasant population, and the innumerable threats to its borders and culture, Europe has been less than reliable in its dealings.”
I’m not one for brief summaries of complex historical issues, I see them as a distortion of the situation.
But because you did not intend that sentence as a comprehensive summary, it comes across beautifully as a point to start a discussion.
Nice work.
Clakka, your ever-helpful librarian suggested Orlando Figes as a go-to scholar on all things regarding Russian history.
And a friend of a friend suggested you might benefit by looking here.
I have referenced this Paul Keating quote before, but here it is again. From a speech at University of NSW, 4th September 1997 – 27 years ago!!
“Partly as a result of the reluctance of current members to move faster in expanding EU membership, I believe a great security mistake is being made in Europe with the decision to expand NATO. There is no doubt this was seen by some in Europe as a softer option than EU expansion.
NATO and the Atlantic alliance served the cause of western security well. They helped ensure that the Cold War finally ended in ways which serve open, democratic interests. But NATO is the wrong institution to perform the job it is now being asked to perform.
The decision to expand NATO by inviting Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to participate and to hold out the prospect to others – in other words to move Europe’s military demarcation point to the very borders of the former Soviet Union – is, I believe, an error which may rank in the end with the strategic miscalculations which prevented Germany from taking its full place in the international system at the beginning of this century.
The great question for Europe is no longer how to embed Germany in Europe – that has been achieved – but how to involve Russia in a way which secures the continent during the next century.
And there was a very obvious absence of statecraft here. The Russians, under Mikhail Gorbachev, conceded that East Germany could remain in NATO as part of a united Germany. But now just half a dozen years later NATO has climbed up to the western border of the Ukraine. This message can be read in only one way: that although Russia has become a democracy, in the consciousness of western Europe it remains the state to be watched, the potential enemy.
The words used to explain NATO’s expansion have been nuanced, and the dangers have been acknowledged. But however careful the words are, whatever the window dressing of the Permanent NATO-Russia Joint Council, everybody knows that Russia is the reason for NATO’s expansion.
The decision is dangerous for several reasons. It will fuel insecurity in Russia and strengthen those strains of Russian thought, including the nationalists and former communists in the parliament, which are opposed to full engagement with the West. It will make more likely the restoration of military links between Russia and some of its former dependencies. It will make arms control, and especially nuclear arms control, more difficult to achieve.
And NATO expansion will do much less to strengthen the new democracies of eastern Europe than would enlargement of the EU.”
Back when we had a PM that actually had an immense knowledge and understanding of world Politics and History.
I was not aware of the Keating quote, thank you.
Truth Teller, you don’t actually need “an immense knowledge and understanding of world Politics and History” to understand what’s going on here.
All you do need is an appreciation of the huge profits generated by the arms industry, and why they could not allow the threat of (Soviet) Russia simply to evaporate into thin air.
They needed a new enemy! And so they made one!
Same in Australia, with AUKUS fomenting the very enmity that supposedly necessitates it. Instead of engaging in long-winded and contestable historical analysis, just ask: Who profits?
Fact is Russia’s invasion of Ukriane is driving the Russian arms industry and growth, indirect support from fossil fuel Atlas – Koch Network (see Danube Inst where Fox board’s Abbott works; partnered with Heritage author of GOP Project 2025 and supported by cuddly regime of PM ‘mini Putin’ Orban?) vs. EU, NATO, liberal democracy and younger generations.
Keating did good stuff in 20thC, but writes high school opinion essays outside of his expertise on NATO etc, like others in Oz avoids tricky European issues and questions, why?
Because he is ignorant of the nation level issues while resorts to base and nasty name calling, of old Australian attitudes e.g. denigrating NATO head Stoltenberg, and locally FM Wong; surely belongs with Sky News After Dark?
Australians have been not informed about anything for a generation, there is active avoidance of inconvenient facts and dollops of narcissism or hubris to present hackneyed opinions, masquerading as insight and expertise?
Everyone is now the sprog of Murdoch, Koch, Tanton and Howard in an Anglo white Christian nationalist ecosystem, for the <0.001%
Steve, you come across as a naive apologist.
“As I said above, without NATO involvement and encouragement, this matter might well have been settled between Ukraine and the regions seeking autonomy, and hundreds of thousands of deaths would have been avoided.”
talk about reading into history what you want to fill your mind with wondrous conspiracies. Putin already took Crimea in 2014, the fact he got little blow back just encouraged this current folly.
In any case it wouldn’t have been settled in a few days as Putin initially envisaged. He had miles and miles of dead tanks and trucks after two days. What do you think russia would have done if it succeeded? Spared everyone’s lives? Give me a break….Just look at the state of all russia’s liberated territories, scorched earth and mass destruction.
Steve its easy to say such crap that nato should have stayed out when your an armchair warrior. The countries on Russia’s border have now all fled to NATO, i am sure they all tried to interfere in russia’s security too.
I am so looking forward to the F16 deployment in ukraine, Russia has already lost control of its airspace and the 16s will wipe the floor. Russia has spend most of its weapons attacking ukraine civilians, ukraine has spent most of its weapons crippling russian military logistics…..especially fuel and ammunition dumps. Most of russia’s tanks have been wiped. close to 600,000 russian troops have been wiped from the fight. Russia will not win, it will collapse. The only thing stopping Moscow from being bombed is the veto by america. Russia doesn’t have a moral compass so is happy to try to bomb Kyiv
20% of its oil refining has been wiped out by drone strikes. Shortages are being felt everywhere. One million of its brightest left the country. Any able body was coerced into the draft . There is nobody left to do maintenance on basic civilian infrastructure.. Russians will descend into the dark ages when their economy collapses.
Blaming Nato is a complete failure to acknowledge the facts on the ground. Nato was slowly slipping into irrelevance. In fact, its only now, two years into the conflict that its getting its act together. Nato only existed because of russia’s sabre rattling. Its so obvious that if russia was more civil, it could have joined the EU and been a power house. Instead , it chose glory for the empire. No reading of Nato entrails can ever cover the folly of Moscow’s inept leadership. Relics of the cold war who failed to see anything past their precious empire.
Canguro
“What would a world look like if all funding for military activity ceased and those billions (trillions?) were diverted into measures for peaceful activities; education, housing, welfare, shoring up the planet’s infrastructure against the burgeoning ravages of the consequences of global warming, warehousing a safer place for humans to exist along with protecting and expanding what is left of the natural world and its denizens?”
John Lennon sang imagine and i bet he would be a different person now if he was still alive. But then again, having lots of money in a safe country protects you from your innocence. Ask Elon and his billionaire buddies.
stop being so friggin naive. Most of the spend is in response to perceived aggression by the wannabe world leaders. Remember how China chopped $25b of exports from oz over the shitheads comments? A bully in the making. If china stopped building its military, the rest of the world would stop too. If russia didn’t amass 500,000 on ukraines border, nobody would have bothered helping Ukraine.
Russia signaled its intent and is still telling the world they want their empire back.
No sane person is going to stop making defence weaponry while shit like that happens.
Bullies can not be appeased.
A56,
To be honest I had to smile whilst reading your lessons to Steve, and Canguro.
Please can we have your agreement for you to repeat this collection of words after Trump gets in?
There are already signs of a peace deal being prepared, along the lines of the deal which was available very soon after the special military operation went into gear.
USA is tiring of the Ukraine war, and you have worrisome expectations of NATO being the silver bullet. Without USA its a bunch of European nations who battle to find unity, and putting up the necessary spondulex.
They all know that wars like this are expensive, and those who lived there will probably still recall the last big one.
So NATO may want an opportunity to play with big war toys but their civilians could have other ideas.
USAs proxy war is likely drawing to a close, and Zelensky can then take up residence in his US retirement home.
“Steve…your an armchair warrior.”
“I am so looking forward to the F16 deployment in ukraine…the 16s will wipe the floor.”
There is an armchair warrior here, and it ain’t me.
Hey Steve, on russian propaganda, Putin is changing the rhetoric, he is about to admit defeat.
Douglas, “Without USA its a bunch of European nations who battle to find unity, and putting up the necessary spondulex.”
So you agree with my position that NATO was not of any significance when putin started the war.
What changed in NATO’s actions between 2014 and 2022 that so riled Putin. Oh sorry, Russia did invade and take over Crimea and set up proxies in the far east of ukraine to start a “proxy war”. Oh i am so sorry, nobody mentions russia’s criminal intents.
Proxy war ah? Helping ukraine in their hour of need is now a proxy war? Chant the mantra often enough……… i guess
” after Trump gets in”, what if he doesn’t. A lotta coffees are owed to me. I see Biden has stepped down from the campaign.
From one armchair warrior to another, at least i have info on the ground, not some hack who has a book to sell. You seem to think your the only one who could be right. Putin never had any imperial intentions, it was all NATO’s fault……..i have a fountain to sell you.
” he is about to admit defeat.”
Source please Andy.
andrew smith,
“Australians have been not informed about anything for a generation, there is active avoidance of inconvenient facts and dollops of narcissism or hubris to present hackneyed opinions, masquerading as insight and expertise?
Everyone is now the sprog of Murdoch, Koch, Tanton and Howard in an Anglo white Christian nationalist ecosystem, for the <0.001%”
I have to agree entirely. Watching how the hyaena press attacks easy targets but fails to mention the truth, tells lies by omission and then moves on as if nothing happened, yea maybe i am jaded. The ukraine war has brought home to me how little information gets an airing but people of “position” can say whatever and it’s front page click bait. Just like its all NATO’s fault…….mainstream assumed general knowledge.
PS. Steve. When you have wiped your own country clean ( exported the smartest 1million people, lost 500,000-600,000 soldiers, had your navy defeated, have your defences blown apart, destroyed your oil industry) and sue for peace, is that a victory?
” he is about to admit defeat.”
Source please Andy.
Regardless of whether the US is tiring of Ukraine, Trump cannot simply flick the switch to off.
That’s why the $61bn package was important.
It is also noteworthy that the rest of NATO has supported Ukraine with about 30% more than the US.
European support remains strong, and it will remain so.
While ever Russia remains steadfastly belligerent, Ukraine will get support for resistance
AC,
I think Trump has said he can end this war with a phone call.
You are quite right in saying this will not mean an immediate end, and one reason could be that it is against Ukrainian law to talk to Russia about peace.
If that is not the stupidest law to be passed when you are the vulnerable one?
So Trump and Putin can chat, and that is all that is needed.
As for NATO how about Hungary, and maybe you spotted a change in direction from Turkey, and Germany is feeling the pinch from the high prices of imported energy from USA, after NS 2 was blown up.
Douglas,
Trump has said a lot of things. 99.9% (at least) are lies and the rest is incomprehensible.
Leefe.
So right, but the guy is likely to be in charge very soon, and unless we duck out of the “West” altogether, then he will dictate the agenda for this government too.
How about we get on our knees and say a prayer together?
Trump says a lot of things that are entirely unlikely to have any basis in fact or rationality.
1/. His ego is such that he is unlikely to find the image of negotiating a surrender, attractive. Being called a loser on the international stage as his first foray won’t be his preference.
2/. He can only cause Ukraine and Europe to change their position through limiting supply of finance and weapons. This isn’t a short term option for Trump
3/. He can only force Russia to modify their position through escalation and increased risk of loss. Putin doesn’t respond to sweet talk.
Therefore, Trump is most likely to risk or threaten escalation of the war if he seeks an end in the near future.
Andyfiftysix: Yes, the shocking ignorance of many who claim to be anti-imperialist centrist or left, who gaslight others, but fawn all over any other power and authority.
They are neither informed well nor know how to evaluate sources, then how to analyse/present well, due to the influence of RW MSM and broader ecosystem, using imported US techniques; including denigrating those who disagree to avoid grounded analysis.
Many here echo Fox News culture and former presenter Tucker Carlson et al, channeling white Christian nationalism of Tanton Network, locally SPA.
Requires proponents to shoot messengers, dog whistle, repeat unsupported sciencey sounding talking points and misrepresenting data, like climate science denialists, creating fantasy narratives that require ethical, moral and empathy bypasses, too easy?
Andrew:
I’m not fawning over anyone; at present, I think USAnia (as bad as they are) is somewhat less of a threat to the rest of the world than Putin and Russia. If Combover Caligula gets back in, Putin will be even worse.
One can deplore the actions of both nations at the same time. It isn’t an either/or thing.
Official recounts date the start of Russian invasion of Ukraine as 24/2/2022, but, as pointed out, there was a sudden escalation of violence in the Donetsk-Luhansk region on 16/2, starting 8 days prior to Putin’s broader Z-day kickoff.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/18/ukraine-shelling-residential-areas-puts-civilians-risk
Onground assessment gleaned from independent aid agencies seem to indicate that the majority of the sudden increase in shelling occured within Ukrainian-gov territory, and originated mostly from areas controlled by “Russian-backed separatists” (aka Putin’s ‘little green men’).
Based on this, I would concede validity to the concept that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine (aka ‘Special Military Operation’) actually commenced, via Russian proxies, on 16th Feb, 2022.
Canguro,
Given that this particular author has previously, in attempting to justify choosing to allow their own pet cat unfettered access to slaughter native wildlife, decided to excoriate responsible cat-keepers attempting to mitigate against environmental impacts through curfews as practitioners of (direct quote) ” tortuous enslavement”, I am inclined to question your choice of appropriate medium for environmental messaging.
However, given the apparent paucity of sympathetic medium for environmental messaging on this site, please feel free to choose whatever engine you feel is best inclined to pull your individual wagon uphill.
CB, amen to that. It’s true, in fact, that all of my environmental pleadings go unresponded. Silly me. 🙁
You’re right, another forum would be more appropriate. Not knocking this one, but the table-top chatter is on other matters. I feel like the asocial kid at the school formal, hanging against the wall, looking at all the pretty girls and hoping one might look my way and, gosh golly, one may actually smile and walk over, maybe say hi, whatcha doin’, wanna dance?
If someone responds to this post I may revise my view, but as things stand, I think the kid against the wall analogy is firming up big time.
Canguro
Opining on East-Ukraine or Gaza requires abstract intellectual output.
Impacting upon domestic environmental issues requires actual personal commitment.
From the article corvy linked to — “Hostilities in eastern Ukraine (Donbass) have damaged or destroyed hundreds of schools since the war began in 2014.”
So how were hundreds of schools destroyed?
Did the people of the Donbass destroy their own schools and kill their own children?
Or were they destroyed by Ukraine shelling its own citizens with whom they were negotiating the final details of autonomy within Ukraine?
Hmmm. It’s a tough question.
hey Steve, i do remember an airplane shot out of the sky by russian proxies. So Russian proxies were fighting in the Donbass.
You seem to think that ukraine deliberately just bombed schools. Well, going on past behaviour, it seems to me your colour blind to russia’s military tactics.They still subscribe to carpet bombing and mass human attacks. Every town they “liberate” gets shredded.
“negotiating the final details of autonomy”, yea right, i got a fountain to sell you. This has been Russian tactics since year dot. Set up proxies with money and weapons. In fact america does the same shit. And to add to the shit, russia has now incorporated the areas into its constitution. So much for defending the poor people of the donbass. This was a deliberate russian ruse.
” he is about to admit defeat.”
I still need that source please Andy.