Westslope, you sound like another sad, misguided, Roger Waters. As a Canadian having lived for many years in the past in the US I will tell you that your characterization of US and NATO involvement in Ukraine is lazy and highly reductive. Has the US often been a bad actor in international affairs? Yes. History. But Putin's Russia and Xi's China are brutal, genocidal regimes - in comparison to the current Biden administration in the US. I will take Democracy (even a deeply flawed one like the US) over Authoritarian regimes any day. And I can assure you that the Ukrainian people will fight to the end for their fledgling democracy. I don't think that we as Canadians, with our own flawed democracy, would just lay down and let a genocidal regime roll over us. I am not in favour of war. But I will also defend my family. Sometimes that requires an armed response.
Westslope, you sound like another sad, misguided, Roger Waters. As a Canadian having lived for many years in the past in the US I will tell you that your characterization of US and NATO involvement in Ukraine is lazy and highly reductive. Has the US often been a bad actor in international affairs? Yes. History. But Putin's Russia and Xi's China are brutal, genocidal regimes - in comparison to the current Biden administration in the US. I will take Democracy (even a deeply flawed one like the US) over Authoritarian regimes any day. And I can assure you that the Ukrainian people will fight to the end for their fledgling democracy. I don't think that we as Canadians, with our own flawed democracy, would just lay down and let a genocidal regime roll over us. I am not in favour of war. But I will also defend my family. Sometimes that requires an armed response.
What about the countries that chose to join Nato due to the existential threat of Russia? Are they not sovereign countries? Don't that have a say? If they would have let Ukraine join do you think Russia would be invading now?
...
Sure the do. Are you familiar with the concept of social dilemmas? You might know the concept better as a prisoners' dilemma or The Tragedy of the Commons. Individual rational decisions lead to bad outcomes (overfishing, freeway congestion, arms races, etc.).
Let me use another metaphor. Would you allow a small child or an adult under your care to wet their fingers and stick them in an electrical socket? Do not adults have a personal right to not wear a seat belt?
Europe has a long history of successful armed neutral nation states. Sweden and Switzerland kept out of WW II for the obvious benefit of the people living there. Finland has defeated Soviet advances in the mid-20th century. All three of those states have maintained close intelligence and security relationships with other rich western nations.
If the honest to God security of people living in East Europe was the primary objective and not US agricultural and weapon systems exports to those countries, for example, then denying official NATO membership while forging closer security and economic ties would have been the way to go.
The USA plays this game with China and Taiwan without too much difficulty. Unless diverting US public opinion from thorny challenging US domestic economic and social problems is the objective.
Do you believe that the USA has a right to place nuclear weapons in NATO member countries close the former Soviet Union and possibly now Russia?
How do you explain the US discomfort at nuclear weapons placed in Castro's Cuba? Did not Cuba have a sovereign right to choose Soviet missiles in its own country? The USA was clearly very hostile to the regime.
By all means, spend a few paragraphs and explain why the USA and other NATO allies ignored the Russian preference for NATO to stay out of Eastern Europe.
And then contrast with the US official recognition of China but not Taiwan despite the obvious close ties to Taiwan.
Afghanistan: If the USA had given the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a week or two, who knows? Perhaps the Taliban would have hand-delivered Osama Bin Laden.
Or barring that possibility, perhaps sober thought would have prevailed in the USA and instead of invading and occupying Afghanistan, US armed forces might have struck a few targets within Afghanistan sending a clear message to the unwitting hosts of Al-Qaeda.
Would have saved countless Afghani lives and a few American lives too along with more than a few American tax payer dollars. That would have prevented the global chattering class from shaking their heads and marveling (again) at the ahistoricism of political elites in the USA. Or pushing some to ask if the US armed forces always needed live targets to practice on.
What about the countries that chose to join Nato due to the existential threat of Russia? Are they not sovereign countries? Don't that have a say? If they would have let Ukraine join do you think Russia would be invading now?
Afghanistan, you may have a point. We were certainly there longer then we needed to, but in your what-if game, things could have been handled differently to a different outcome.
You seem to have left out Iraq for some reason. Given all the reasons we went there, namely the WMD, appears based on lies, that would seem worth mentioning.
By all means, spend a few paragraphs and explain why the USA and other NATO allies ignored the Russian preference for NATO to stay out of Eastern Europe.
And then contrast with the US official recognition of China but not Taiwan despite the obvious close ties to Taiwan.
Afghanistan: If the USA had given the Taliban regime in Afghanistan a week or two, who knows? Perhaps the Taliban would have hand-delivered Osama Bin Laden.
Or barring that possibility, perhaps sober thought would have prevailed in the USA and instead of invading and occupying Afghanistan, US armed forces might have struck a few targets within Afghanistan sending a clear message to the unwitting hosts of Al-Qaeda.
Would have saved countless Afghani lives and a few American lives too along with more than a few American tax payer dollars. That would have prevented the global chattering class from shaking their heads and marveling (again) at the ahistoricism of political elites in the USA. Or pushing some to ask if the US armed forces always needed live targets to practice on.
My damn clever strategy was to avoid granting NATO membership to the former members of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. My strategy was to slowly, patiently co-opt Russia into the western fold which would have created sustainable peace and security in eastern Europe and would have created sustainable economic and security benefits for the USA and other rich western nations.
You seem to be dodging the question. Russia's trade balance 1990 to 2020 though I am sure you are already aware of this.
Russia, like Australia, has had a very cozy time of it, selling off its natural resources. That is what I mean by creaming it. But that is not the point I was making. The point is, Russia has totally infiltrated the highest levels of the German government. Maybe the German's were thinking that was the best way to contain Russia. Whatever it was, the upper echelons of government on both sides were totally in cahoots with each other. The very strategy you claim to have been the better course rather than this alleged aggressive NATO expansion is what the actual strategy was.. lived and breathed.. by most of the European Union and most of all by Germany.
So if this strategy of yours was so damn clever, why didn't this keep the peace?
Listen up NoEnzo... I am a well socialized freemarket economist who, contrary to you, pretends to understand something about data, measurement and economics. Trade balance rhetoric is typically for the 'little people'.
Cozy time? What is wrong with you man? Selling off? Are you a Man of the People like a MAGA Republican?
"Totally infiltrated"? Now you are making up stuff and lying like a typical American.
"The very strategy you claim to have been the better course rather than this alleged aggressive NATO expansion is what the actual strategy was.. lived and breathed.. by most of the European Union and most of all by Germany." More lies worthy of MAGA Republicans.....
So if this strategy of yours was so damn clever, why didn't this keep the peace? Hey NoEnzo... you just got an A+ from Herr Joseph Goebbels.
My damn clever strategy was to avoid granting NATO membership to the former members of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. My strategy was to slowly, patiently co-opt Russia into the western fold which would have created sustainable peace and security in eastern Europe and would have created sustainable economic and security benefits for the USA and other rich western nations.
In the meantime, please note that many countries in Europe have been economically hammered while the USA has radically increased LNG exports to Europe. Canada has also indirectly benefited from the those hugely expensive LNG imports, viewed from the European consumer perspective.
I find it odd that you live in Germany, yet you seem to really not care about the welfare of Germans and other Europeans.
For the record, I view Russia as a reliable source of natural gas and other raw material imports from the European perspective. It would be foolish for Europe to say no to Russian energy sources going forward, especially natural gas.
But if you and others want to benefit special interests in Canada and the USA going forward, please feel free. This will not be the first nor the last time that Europe has suffered from US-lead foreign policy.
Sounds like you need a House Un-German Activities Committee, Herr McCarthy.
You are actually not wrong, not in the sense of McCarthyism, but to uncover the massive corruption with pretty ham-fisted cover-ups (one tax clerk burnt a set of tax files of an "environmental institute" on the Polish border, an institute funded by Gazprom and run by various SPD politicians, all to do with Nordstream ).
Corruption is corruption, no matter what side of the fence you sit on.
The SPD (leaders of the coalition government) are sweeping this under the carpet but that would be mistake for future EU relationships. The Poles for instance, have lost all respect for Germany's political leadership. And rightly so.
..... So, why didn't it work? Russia was creaming it and had half of Europe dependent on its oil and gas supplies. Economy was rock solid, trade balance likewise.. so why throw it all away? Or at least risk destroying such a cozy arrangement?
What do you mean by "creaming it"? Yes, amassing troops on the border and invading Ukraine has come at a huge cost to Russia. Then Germany and many other European countries are paying a significant economic cost too. Norway is benefiting along with other net exporters of oil and natural gas. Some in the USA made out like bandits on US LNG exports to Europe although overall the cost-benefit equation for the entire US economy looks negative.
You seem to be dodging the question. Russia's trade balance 1990 to 2020 though I am sure you are already aware of this.
Russia, like Australia, has had a very cozy time of it, selling off its natural resources. That is what I mean by creaming it. But that is not the point I was making. The point is, Russia has totally infiltrated the highest levels of the German government. Maybe the German's were thinking that was the best way to contain Russia. Whatever it was, the upper echelons of government on both sides were totally in cahoots with each other. The very strategy you claim to have been the better course rather than this alleged aggressive NATO expansion is what the actual strategy was.. lived and breathed.. by most of the European Union and most of all by Germany.
So if this strategy of yours was so damn clever, why didn't this keep the peace?
