NATO nonsense - Page 13

Topic: NATO nonsense (Read 50108 times)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #300 – 2022-03-28, 06:10:11

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-27, 21:32:53

German and French leaders envisioned visa freedom with Russia/Putin, i.e. open borders in the east. This is a fundamentally irreconcilable difference

This is a big deal? Visa freedom? And I'd thought my country's politicians were petty...and unserious!

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #301 – 2022-03-28, 06:45:17

The European concept of visa freedom used to entail:
- no specific country-entry documents (country-entry document obtained at the embassy of the foreign country you want to visit = visa)
- consequent to the above, no related administrative or bureaucratic procedures
- consequent to the above, no related fees

What is required at the border is to carry your ID card - issued by your own country - which normally would NOT be checked at the border. Import/export of commercial goods and cargo would depend on the customs agreement with the visa-free country. Within Schengen countries, basically all good to go.

Reasonable prerequisites for visa freedom are good relations between the countries, no border disputes, no spy dramas, no green men (unmarked foreign soldiers posing as internal separatists), cyberattacks etc. All these are problems between Eastern EU member countries and Russia, but near-nonexistent between Western EU countries and Russia, so Western EU always preferred to glide over and ignore the existence of these problems, believing that Russia would change once honeyed enough with more and more (and more and more and more and more and more) concessions, because this way sweet Russian pals stimulate the economy by buying real estate and yachts and send their kids to schools in the West etc etc etc etc etc.

Nota bene:
Earlier this century, USA under W managed to change the concept of visa freedom to something that cancelled all the benefits of visa freedom that I listed. Vis-a-vis USA, visa freedom is actually a full-blown fee-laden bureaucratic procedure resulting in a document that grants entry to the country - reasonably called a visa, but USA calls it a "visa-waiver program".^[1]

Americans made some whiny noise when, in return to this blatant nonsense by W, EU eventually slapped USA back with the same nonsensical concept of visa freedom. Now Americans have to go through all the visa motions too to obtain a visa that says they have visa freedom with EU. Ordinary Americans complained that come on, this is not visa freedom. But remember, EU citizens had reason to complain about the same thing first. USA imposed this nonsense first - and won. Now visa freedom means just another kind of visa because USA made it so.

Not sure if this means any change to the concept of visa freedom between e.g. EU and Russia. We'll see as soon as it comes up again. Edit: Likely henceforth the new concept applies, because it has already been applied between EU and (the friendly ex-colonial parts of) Africa.

So, in answer to your question: Visa freedom a la USA means nothing. Visa freedom a la USA is the same thing as no visa freedom. However, the kind of visa freedom with Russia that Western EU tried to impose on Eastern EU member states at the time was practically a demand to get slaughtered.

¹Edit 2: And naturally, everybody's passport - i.e. the international travel document, not ID card - gets inspected at the border for the presence and validity of the "visa-waiver program" thingie. It amounts to 100% visa, no freedom.↵

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #302 – 2022-03-29, 06:15:03

Ukrainian negotiators (and Abramovich) suffered a poisoning attack during the negotiations, WSJ says.

Several issues. The least first: Why is Abramovich highlighted here? The original heading in the print edition was 'Suspected Poisoning Sickened Abramovich.' Just Abramovich in this heading, not Ukrainian negotiators.

More seriously, negotiations overall are a bad idea in this war. Negotiations generally attempt to achieve a ceasefire. They usually pause the situation at the current front. In this case, the current front absolutely should not be there. The reasonable starting point for negotiations would be for Russia to get lost from all of Ukraine, including Donbass, and better still from Crimea and Transnistria too. As long as this is not the starting point, negotiations do not serve any sensible purpose. As long as this is not the starting point, Putin only gets further encouraged, just as he has all along.

Putin is exactly like Hitler, only slower. At the beginning of WWII, Western Europeans thought nothing of the annexation of Austria. Quite the opposite, after Anschluss they encouraged and enabled the annexation of Sudetenland, thinking this would calm things down. But this led to the annexation of entire Czechoslovakia instead. And to the actual world war.

The same way as WWII really started with the annexation of Austria, the invasion of Ukraine really started with the annexation of Crimea and conflict in Donbass. What is there to negotiate over this? Minsk agreements led to nothing. Earlier sanctions localised to Crimea led to nothing. Instead, they have brought about the current expanded invasion.

There is something systemically deliberate here. Namely, nobody in the West really cares about Ukraine, about whole countries and peoples. They care more about Abramovich, the oligarch with good style and taste - good style and taste matter above everything and anything else, apparently. When oligarchs - particularly those with style and taste - buy football clubs, yachts, jets and real estate in London, in the Alpine and Mediterranean resorts, when their kids tweet, instagram and tictoc their lavish lifestyle from the big European and US cities, "everybody" benefits. It's good surface "content", while gas and oil money keeps flowing in the bottom 90% of the iceberg.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #303 – 2022-03-29, 07:23:57

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-27, 07:10:56

I wonder if there's a good reason painting Orban as any more important Putin ally than those leaders of far more important countries who outright worshipped Putin, such as German Reichskanzlers and French presidents, consistently visiting Russia on May 9th, and then after annexation of Crimea, on May 10th instead. Merkel did not end up as bad as Schröder, but - yup, Schröder, there's an important Putin ally. And Francois Fillon, Paavo Lipponen, Wolfgang Schüssel - many ex-leaders and highups of EU countries who accepted Putin's money.

Orban is not even close to that. Orban is really nobody's ally, particularly not in terms of foreign politics. And domestically, if all that's said about him is true, how can he possibly lose?

He more likely than not won't. But the EU doesn't have a foreign or security policy at the moment, it is for most purposes outside the EU remit. So any one country can in effect veto, be it Estonia, Malta or Hungary. In other words Putin only needs one ally, the most likely are Hungary, Greece and Cyprus. Italy and Germany have large trade with Russia, a double-edged weapon. I suspect France has considered Ukraine to be an inconvenience, and Russia an opportunity, but also a distraction.

Putin having crossed the Rubicon changed that equation (no 2014 didn't quite qualify, but set other wheels in motion). Schröder is a bit of a persona non grata, the others jumped ship in time.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #304 – 2022-03-29, 10:02:15

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-29, 07:23:57

Putin having crossed the Rubicon changed that equation (no 2014 didn't quite qualify, but set other wheels in motion).

Didn't qualify for/as what, exactly? And why?

You see, since for Western Europeans Crimea 2014 somehow didn't qualify, it's likely not settled that Putin crossed Rubicon either.

Moreover, the analogy points to something rather sinister. After Caesar crossed Rubicon, he established the Caesarean rule, Rome became an empire and the republican order ceased to exist. So, are Western Europeans foreseeing world domination for Putin and accept it as a tolerable future? Indeed, why not, Abramovich has style, Putin shares with everybody important enough to call the shots....^[1]

Thanks for making it clear that Ukraine was betrayed and abandoned in 2014. What's going on now is pretending that it wasn't a (complete) betrayal. A similar scenario was clearly in store for the Baltic countries, but the scenario started to play out in Ukraine first.

Anyway, if Ukraine is not allowed to stand, then the EU will implode. All countries between Germany and Russia will understand that they are really on their own and the alleged alliance does not exist, neither Nato or EU. And then we'd both have to admit that Orban was actually ahead of events, instead of lost.

¹You say they jumped ship in time? I'd say they are more like taking a bit of reduced-pay leave.↵

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #305 – 2022-03-29, 10:44:44

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-29, 02:02:15

it's likely not settled that Putin crossed Rubicon either

I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the expression, ersi: Cæsar told his troops that, if they took the action he proposed, there were only two possible outcomes: Victory or death.
That's why Putin's annexation of Crimea wasn't "crossing the Rubicon" — and his invasion of Ukraine may well be...
And that's the rub!
An adequate reason to give Europe and NATO (and of course the U.S.) pause.
Before they commit to declared war with the Russian Federation...

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #306 – 2022-03-29, 11:09:01

Though we might remember the situation in Yugoslavia, where doing nothing quickly became untenable. If memory serves, Russia was even invited to tag along.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #307 – 2022-03-29, 11:29:21

I take your point, Frenzie. Who shall be invited to "tag along" this time?

Soviet military doctrine always called for nuclear weapons to supplement conventional forces... And I (reasonably) doubt Putin's position is a different one. How much control does the Russian President have? More telling: How much control does Putin have?

And to think how many in the U.S. (and elsewhere) feared Trump, for similar misgivings.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #308 – 2022-03-29, 13:42:20

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-29, 10:02:15

Thanks for making it clear that Ukraine was betrayed and abandoned in 2014. What's going on now is pretending that it wasn't a (complete) betrayal. A similar scenario was clearly in store for the Baltic countries, but the scenario started to play out in Ukraine first.

For Ukraine to be "betrayed" there would have to be promises made that were not kept. There aren't. Ukraine was not and is not a member of NATO. Nor is it a member of the EU. Getting Ukraine out of Moscow's grasp has not been straightforward. Ukraine has prepared for war now for 8 years, and far more successfully at that than Russia. Primary assistance has come from the US, but also other NATO partners. Since the Armenia-Azerbaijian war, the Turkish Bayraktars have played a starring role.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #309 – 2022-03-29, 14:02:56

Wasn't the agreement that had Ukraine relinquish "its" nuclear arsenal supposed to guarantee its status as a sovereign state, the sanctity of its borders? (Of course, if the only other parties to that agreement were the Russian Federation and its former satellites...)

Not to say that Ukraine could have or should have tried to keep and maintain the nukes left within its borders! That just wouldn't have been practical...at the time!

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #310 – 2022-03-29, 14:17:02

Yep, the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #311 – 2022-03-29, 14:34:04

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-29, 13:42:20

For Ukraine to be "betrayed" there would have to be promises made that were not kept. There aren't. Ukraine was not and is not a member of NATO. Nor is it a member of the EU.

As I keep pointing out: The Baltic countries were almost betrayed while *in* both Nato and EU. Damn lucky for Nato and EU, Ukraine is the test case now, instead of the Baltic countries.

By their very existence, Nato and EU hold promises. E.g. there is the defence article in the EU treaties. Everybody knows it does nothing. Yet it's there. So, no promise, you say? Well, Nato fills that gaping hole. It is a gaping hole and better be filled! Nato/EU better be what they crack themselves up to be.

There have been a long series of promises, starting with the Budapest memorandum and ending with Minsk agreements. Call it no promise if you wish.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #312 – 2022-03-29, 14:59:00

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-29, 05:42:20

Ukraine has prepared for war now for 8 years, and far more successfully at that than Russia.

Following the annexation of Crimea... Do you fault Ukraine for preparing for the inevitable? And, perhaps, Putin's pursuit of designs on Ukrainian territories are more the result of his accurate assessment of his nation's conventional military's shortcomings — making his timing sort of a forced move?

What a God-awful mess! (I wonder how good a chess player Putin is...)

The U.S.S.R. was never particularly good at abiding by treaties... (Remember Reagan's "Trust, but verify"?) And the U.S. foreign policy has been unmoored since Congress absolved itself of its responsibility to declare war, or not. Certainly since the War Powers Act, administrations have repeatedly foregone the requirement to submit consequential treaties to Congress for ratification...
Indeed, Ukraine was "betrayed" — but is nuclear conflagration the only way to restore our honor?

Or can Putin somehow be placated?

Quote

“The Defense Ministry of the Russian Federation, for purposes of trust-building and creating conditions for holding talks further, and achieving the final goal of agreeing and signing a peace treaty, made a decision to radically decrease the military activities in the directions of Kyiv and Chernihiv,” Alexander Fomin, Russia’s deputy minister of defense, told reporters in Turkey after the two sides met.

Chernigov, in northern Ukraine, sits about 150 kilometers (93 miles) from Kyiv.

Russian officials will provide more details about the reduction after the delegation returns to Moscow, Fomin said.
(source)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #313 – 2022-03-29, 20:10:35

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-29, 14:34:04

There have been a long series of promises, starting with the Budapest memorandum and ending with Minsk agreements. Call it no promise if you wish.

Actually I should say - a long series of promises up to the latest sanctions. But the more appropriate word is commitment. Are sanctions non-committal? Do they not send a signal? Are Ukrainians not allowed to interpret actions like this?

The association agreement was set in motion during Yanukovich's term. The association agreement in itself is a signal, but even more so under Yanukovich, indicating that the EU expects Ukraine to follow the path of integration even under a pro-Russian president.

The association agreement was conditioned on releasing Tymoshenko from prison. Was this not a display of commitment to a principle? In return, Ukrainians have expectations to the EU too - namely to stay committed to the path of integration that the EU itself pushed for.

Now, I saw it then as a terribly discounted membership offer, like in case of Turkey, which is bad enough, but it was much worse. Somebody knowing Yanukovich and Putin would have been able to foresee that meddling in Ukrainian internal affairs (which is what the association agreement is, certainly when coupled with demands to release particular political prisoners - don't even try to deny this) in an unopportune moment could end up in two bad ways:
- Ukraine would continue to follow its orientation, which was pro-Russian at the time, and the EU would look like an idiot for assuming that a pro-Kremlin kleptocrat could somehow embody West European values
- Ukraine would change orientation by means of political scandals at best, a bloody coup at worst, and there would remain a sizeable opposition to the new pro-Western orientation, ripe for Kremlin to abuse and blame the EU for meddling in Ukraine's internal affairs

The latter happened in the worst way, with annexation of Crimea and separation of Donbass. Was there any possible good outcome foreseeable? No, there was not. This is how the EU betrayed Ukraine - by being a total moron in a simple enough situation that diplomats study in beginner courses. The EU must correct its mistake or be damned.

To say "There were no promises" and to start loosening the sanctions would be the last betrayal, signalling end of life for the EU.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #314 – 2022-03-30, 05:08:18

Quote from: ersi on 2022-03-29, 14:34:04

As I keep pointing out: The Baltic countries were almost betrayed while *in* both Nato and EU. Damn lucky for Nato and EU, Ukraine is the test case now, instead of the Baltic countries.

It's a long game. It would be a stretch to call it an extension of the Great Game, but there are reverberations. Ukraine belongs in Europe, if they want to (they do). So does Turkey (they don't). Russia is too big and ornery, but could be on friendly terms (they aren't).

That is a problem that goes beyond Putin. EU is a club that Russia can't be a member of and cannot influence. NATO is not only that, but a protective alliance against Russia and anyone else that could be a threat to their interests (that includes Turkey, Middle East, North Africa, Sahel, China, worst case India or the US). Moscow will never like the EU or NATO, no matter who is in Kremlin, because the more powerful either will be the less powerful Moscow will be. We can sweeten the deal with trade and common projects, and if the world goes that way a common threat in China (or worst case India), or any other headache major or minor. We all have spent years in Afghanistan for instance (that Great Game again). We are all concerned about islamists. But in the end, and certainly under Putin, Moscow wants us dead. If the US goes insane again and elects another Trump, so does the US.

In Ukraine the goal was to avoid bloodshed. For the talk about rebuilding Ukraine, war sets you back decades. The countries in former Yugoslavia have only partially recovered from a war thirty years ago. If we go back ten years: before Maidan, before the first and second invasion, before the coup attempt in Turkey, when Erdoğan was still trying to join the EU, the Arab Spring was about to happen (and thus Syria and Libya hadn't yet), Osama bin Laden was killed, and Xi wasn't yet in power (and there was an epic power struggle, most dramatic was the Wang Lijun incident). Anyway, for Putin these were good times, of a sort. The EU – Ukraine Association Agreement was on the way, there were still things to do, but Ukraine was just as corrupt as Russia was. And a big chunk of the country felt closer to Moscow than to Brussels. That dramatically changed in 2014. Russia got control over Crimea, but at the cost of Ukraine. Under a different lider than Putin this could have gone differently, but it didn't, and the slow process of wrestling Ukraine from his grasp started.

Putin's countermoves are divisions and dissent, trying to split the EU apart, trying to split the US apart, the US from the EU, and Turkey in particular might be a target, Erdoğan spots opportunities. So do Iran. But by Twitter measure the Russian disinformation is less directed towards US and Europe, more towards India, Pakistan, South Africa and Nigeria. Of course Twitter is a narrow channel too easy to monitor, but while the actual war is limited to a few fronts in Ukraine, the information war is global.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #315 – 2022-03-30, 05:55:40

The all-wonderful "broader picture" argument tends to come up when there is really no argument. For now, I'll submit this: When you don't know what you are doing, then broader picture and long-term whatever do not help you. Whenever somebody makes pro-Turkey and anti-islamist statements in the same breath, they do not know at all what they are doing. If islamists are a concern, then simply do not consider Turkey for the EU membership. Do not bait and tease them. It's not any more difficult than this.

Quote from: jax on 2022-03-30, 05:08:18

In Ukraine the goal was to avoid bloodshed.

When exactly was that the goal? Pre-2014 there had been no bloodshed, certainly no bigger than what followed after the incompetent bait and tease with the association agreement. So, either the EU had some other more important goals besides avoiding bloodshed or they tried sincerely to avoid bloodshed but it turned out the opposite way, i.e. an undeniable blunder. No broader picture can excuse this.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #316 – 2022-03-30, 11:49:55

Russia has over 5k nuclear warheads, several of them in working order. If nothing else that constrains the available options, and how to achieve the goals. As do the other substantial warfare resources of Russia.

Turkey, like Russia, and like every country on the planet, have a range of relationship options, from reasonably friendly to outright hostile. But every choice constrains the subsequent choices. And we have to build on the actual actions, not scenarios and modelling. This is not Minority Report. So 2014 cut off all overtures of rapprochement with Russia, since then the operating principle has been to constrain Russia. The sanctions, the 2% of GDP by 2024 resolution, the NATO Enhanced Forward Presence "tripwire" in 2016.

This was also when existing Russian low-level disinformation become weaponised. Pre-Crimea Russia would not have interfered in Western politics. IRA was founded in 2014. Russia also tried (unsuccessfully) to sanction-proof their economy and weapons industry, and cozied up to China and to less extent rest of Asia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwfs3BOceM

It still wasn't a Rubicon moment. It would have been possible to deescalate. Ukraine had learned their lesson, but the rest of us could have gone through trust-building exercises, reset buttons and the rest. But there is no stepping back from this invasion. A regime change would lead to many bygones be bygones, but not under Putin.

Quote

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual

— Lord Palmerston (and Henry Kissinger)

Half the world's economy (in PPP) and 5/6 the world's population are not in OECD countries. OECD countries are mostly open and democratic (Turkey is a member), other countries are not in the majority of cases (some are getting there, others are going in opposite direction). This multipolar world is messy, and there will be many alliances seemly and unseemly. Hardly anything new though, going back to e.g. the Cold War it was far worse.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #317 – 2022-03-30, 14:18:57

Friedrich Merz (CDU) says that Merkel (CDU) was wrong about:
- Nord Stream, saying that it was purely a private sector venture
- phasing out nuclear power, proportionally increasing dependence on Russian gas
- halting Ukraine's admission to Nato, failing in a clear policy after annexation of Crimea

Merz: "Wir müssen eingestehen, dass wir uns geirrt haben."

Well, of course. And now too little too late.

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #318 – 2022-03-30, 15:51:42

1. Well, yes. We don't need any more fossil gas pipelines anywhere. Burning gas is an expensive and filthy habit that we should stop. That said it didn't really matter, apart from the gross waste of money. EU could have gotten, and did get, the gas from the existing tubes. Now, as a temporary tide-me-over we will get fossil gas in the form of LNG, which is even more wasteful than in tubes, but there we go. But the good news is that it is Russian wasted money.

2. That too, yes. It matters a little more, but still just a moderate amount of energy. Nuclear power is not cost-effective, and has been losing money through the 2010s. However, extending the life span of nuclear power plants is relatively cheap, and energy is not going to be as cheap in the 2020s as in the 2010s and the 2030s. That is a problem with new reactors, in a number of European countries. They will most likely not be profitable. On the other hand, if looked through the perspective of energy security, it might make sense to have a share of nuclear power. Unsurprisingly these power plants will be government paid.

3. Now this one is tricky. Germany and France would have been against an eastwards expansion of NATO on principle and instinct. But even if they were against it doesn't mean that it is a good idea. The most likely outcome of such an application would be that the invasion would have happened earlier, and time has been on Ukraine's side. The longer it took, the less likely a Russian invasion would succeed. It would also be easier for the Russians to claim that this invasion was in defence of Mother Russia. I would like to see Ukraine in NATO, but on the other side I don't believe in making promises you cannot keep. That would make the countries less secure, not more (thus I am not keen on Georgia in NATO, unless the Article 5 irrevocably and believably would apply to them).

"Stealth NATO" is fine, like the training and equipment of Ukrainian soldiers. The Turkish media star may have triggered Putin, but on the whole it has helped. As has the Swedish/British Robot 57, and the less famous domestic arms industry.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXVu_DeB4wo

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #319 – 2022-03-31, 02:02:46

An aside about a circumstance that perhaps hasn't been sufficiently considered:
https://youtu.be/pet2rwOYiPQ/embed/pet2rwOYiPQ

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #320 – 2022-03-31, 06:50:08

A small perspective into the state of RT and propaganda journalism.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOn4eOH_BS4[/video]

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #321 – 2022-04-01, 06:22:55

Thanks for the tip, ersi. A useful first-hand account... (I especially liked, though, the host's moronic liberal throwaway line "Fox News hates black people". Idiots gotta idiot, occasionally, else they lose their liberal creds! But such bias was merely a momentary distraction. The MSM is also addicted to such; I take it for what it is, and mostly just leave it there.)

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #322 – 2022-04-01, 09:08:42

Liberals: idioting
Fox News opinion shows: "black woman dumb" https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1499191856948662272, blah blah anti-white bias, critical race theory, …

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #323 – 2022-04-01, 10:15:25

Come, now, Frenzie: Surely you know the difference between news programs and punditry? But perhaps your misunderstanding is understandable!

CNN, MSNBC, et al. don't distinguish between such on their programs...

Re: NATO nonsense

Reply #324 – 2022-04-01, 11:36:34

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2022-04-01, 10:15:25

Come, now, Frenzie: Surely you know the difference between news programs and punditry? But perhaps your misunderstanding is understandable! CNN, MSNBC, et al. don't distinguish between such on their programs...

Does the et al include Fox News?

Let's get the facts straight. (Continental) Europeans know the difference between punditry and news programs 100%, given the way our tv and radio present their programmes.

Americans - 100% of them^[1] - do NOT know the difference, even when they quip that there is a difference. Some American professional journalists know the difference, conceptually, but journalism as a whole, as a business area or industry in USA, does not recognise the difference nor even attempt to make it.

Here https://www.foxnews.com/shows
This page says "Fox News Shows". Tell me which one of these is a news show, not punditry. Find one.

¹That is, this is not a partisan matter. When you do not know the difference between news and opinion, you are in no way special among Americans, not necessarily liberal or conservative, simply an ordinary average American. It's a national tragedy.↵