“I think it (NATO expansion) is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and thenwill say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
It’s EXACTLY what has happened.
Good article. Friedman always is good. As to what he says here: Yes, but we are where we are now.
Agreed. And it would be wrong to think the NATO expansion was the only factor in the rise of the oligarchs. There was a lot of confusion, chaos and disarray in Russia post 1991.
âI think it (NATO expansion) is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
âWe have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.
âDonât people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russiaâs democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries weâve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are â but this is just wrong.â
Itâs EXACTLY what has happened.
Good article. Friedman always is good.
As to what he says here: Yes, but we are where we are now.
And I am not so sure Putin would not have tried to keep the âSoviet sphereâ intact â and beholden to Russia â even if NATO had not expanded to take in some of those countries.
“I think it (NATO expansion) is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.”
Putin is basically saying to Ukrainians (more of whom want to join the European Union than NATO): “You fell in love with the wrong guy. You will not run off with either NATO or the E.U. And if I have to club your government to death and drag you back home, I will.”
not without some heavy irony in it: Radicals and neo-Nazis were open and more and more insolent about their ambitions. They were indulged by both the official authorities and local oligarchs, who robbed the people of Ukraine and kept their stolen money in Western banks, ready to sell their motherland for the sake of preserving their capital. To this should be added the persistent weakness of state institutions and the position of a willing hostage to someone else's geopolitical will.
EDIT: btw, as far as I know, which is not much admittedly, he's not wrong about the close cultural ties between Russia and Ukraine and their shared history. Putin's problem as I see it, is that he can't divorce his own quasi-dictatorship of Russia from the country and people of Russia itself, in a l'etat est moi kind of way. The people of the Ukraine, Belarus and even of Russia itself want to move on.
Once KBG always KGB. You can never leave the family until you die.
Remarkable how a KGB operative can go from a good party member with nothing to becoming a Millionaire.
And the alleged offing of his wife so he doesnât have any close family to be held over his head.
Its the Napoleonic complex raising it head once again.
I do not trust little man with beady little eyes and itty bitty little thingy.
( Say this with fake Russian accent)
Location: On the edge of tomorrow looking back at yesterday. Gender:
Posted:
Feb 22, 2022 - 6:49am
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
wow, guess who hasn't moved on from his communist past: In his speech, Putin condemned Ukraine’s decision to move on from its Soviet past, painting the de-facto partition as his punishment. “Modern Ukraine was wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia,” he said. “You want decommunisation? That suits us fine. But don’t stop halfway. We’re ready to show Ukraine what real decommunisation means for it.”
Once KBG always KGB. You can never leave the family until you die.
Remarkable how a KGB operative can go from a good party member with nothing to becoming a Millionaire. And the alleged offing of his wife so he doesn’t have any close family to be held over his head.
Its the Napoleonic complex raising it head once again. I do not trust little man with beady little eyes and itty bitty little thingy. ( Say this with fake Russian accent)
In his speech, Putin condemned Ukraineâs decision to move on from its Soviet past, painting the de-facto partition as his punishment. âModern Ukraine was wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia,â he said. âYou want decommunisation? That suits us fine. But donât stop halfway. Weâre ready to show Ukraine what real decommunisation means for it.â
expansionist reunification!
people can call it what they want but it's a predictable violent variant from an egotistic authoritarian tzar-like troll
and we know this by politically sequencing putin's operating system?
is he trying to put the band back together again?
wrong any way we slice it
just invasion by another name
History and Etymology for invasion
Middle English invasioun "assault, attack," borrowed from Anglo-French invasion, envasioun, borrowed from Late Latin invÄsiÅn-, invÄsiÅ "attack, taking possession by violence," from Latin invÄdere "to enter with hostile intent, assault, attack" + -tiÅn-, -tiÅ, suffix of verbal action â more at INVADE
In his speech, Putin condemned Ukraineâs decision to move on from its Soviet past, painting the de-facto partition as his punishment. âModern Ukraine was wholly and fully created by Bolshevik, communist Russia,â he said. âYou want decommunisation? That suits us fine. But donât stop halfway. Weâre ready to show Ukraine what real decommunisation means for it.â
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 21, 2022 - 9:31pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Well it was already clear that NATO was not going to come to the defense of Ukraine, should Putin invade.
On the other hand, this land grab actually plays into NATO hands, giving it the excuse to bolster its defences and arm the Baltic nations including Poland and give economic support to Ukraine, which is going to need it. I think we can assume Nordstrom2 is now dead. The Ukrainian pipeline is going to be interesting - will Russia will cut it off in retaliation? but that would deprive it of further export revenue..
It seems Ukraine is in the unenviable position of being a geopolitical football.
I do agree he is testing the push-back and calculating. He might stop â for now â with that part of Donbas. If he is allowed to effectively annex those sectors, what does that say about the allies and their support for Ukraine? How much of Ukraine will Putin be allowed to siphon off? First Crimea, then Luhansk and Donetsk.
Well it was already clear that NATO was not going to come to the defense of Ukraine, should Putin invade.
On the other hand, this land grab actually plays into NATO hands, giving it the excuse to bolster its defences and arm the Baltic nations including Poland and give economic support to Ukraine, which is going to need it. I think we can assume Nordstrom2 is now dead. The Ukrainian pipeline is going to be interesting - will Russia will cut it off in retaliation? but that would deprive it of further export revenue..
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 21, 2022 - 9:16pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
sure, but he's also testing how much push-back he is going to encounter. Both the Crimea and now Luhansk and Donetsk are areas with a Russian ethnic majority. Ukraine itself doesn't have a Russian majority, sees itself as a distinct region with a long history (albeit many family and historical ties to Russia). That is a wholly different prospect.
Not that I am condoning the annexation of the separatist regions. One shouldn't forget the genocide of the Crimean cossacks as being one factor in the ethnic cleansing that led to the current Russian ethnic majority there.
But I think he's going to stop there, at least for the moment. Let the dust settle. Work on getting the sanctions removed over time. Then let's see. I could be badly wrong of course.
I do agree he is testing the push-back and calculating. He might stop â for now â with that part of Donbas. If he is allowed to effectively annex those sectors, what does that say about the allies and their support for Ukraine? How much of Ukraine will Putin be allowed to siphon off? First Crimea, then Luhansk and Donetsk.
It seems fairly obvious that Putin wants to regain as much of the former Soviet sphere as he can. He has said as much in explaining his view of Russiaâs relationship with Ukraine.
Russiaâs invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 sometimes gets lost in these discussions.
sure, but he's also testing how much push-back he is going to encounter. Both the Crimea and now Luhansk and Donetsk are areas with a Russian ethnic majority. Ukraine itself doesn't have a Russian majority, sees itself as a distinct region with a long history (albeit many family and historical ties to Russia). That is a wholly different prospect.
Not that I am condoning the annexation of the separatist regions. One shouldn't forget the genocide of the Crimean cossacks as being one factor in the ethnic cleansing that led to the current Russian ethnic majority there.
But I think he's going to stop there, at least for the moment. Let the dust settle. Work on getting the sanctions removed over time. Then let's see. I could be badly wrong of course.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Feb 21, 2022 - 8:37pm
NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
um, can we move away from the 1960's diction here? Structures evolve over time. The relationship between Europe and NATO is definitely a two-way thing, with both the EU and the USA benefitting from the arrangement. The US managed to keep its military hegemony, but Europe could pretend it didn't need to become a military power and concentrate on installing political unification, which has prevented war and allowed unprecedented economic progress.
To call this US imperialism misses the point. Europe can look back on 75 years of peace and prosperity. Long may it continue, if you ask me. The other pesky fact about the jingoistic use of "US imperialism" is that if it is solely imperialism that the US is pursuing, they are doing it pretty badly, allowing a far greater economic power (China) to arise that is increasingly in a position to threaten its hegemony.
No, it's not imperialism per se that drives the US. It is an almost naive belief in the power of free markets to bring about democratic revolutions in other countries, as though free markets alone would create replicas of US values all over the world. I guess you could call that cultural imperialism but it is a pretty soft use of the word. Particularly in light of the fact that its not happening as planned.
IMO the US lost its way by hitching the enlightenment values enshrined in its founding documents to purely business interests. With that it lost both its credibility and made some pretty dumb foreign policy decisions, putting money and trade above values.
It seems fairly obvious that Putin wants to regain as much of the former Soviet sphere as he can. He has said as much in explaining his view of Russiaâs relationship with Ukraine.
Russiaâs invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 sometimes gets lost in these discussions.
I still think he's concerned about NATO expansion to the East, and why shouldn't he be? NATO was an organization that should have been defunct with the end of The Cold War, instead it has been used to justify the expansion of American Imperialism to Russia's doorstep.
um, can we move away from the 1960's diction here? Structures evolve over time. The relationship between Europe and NATO is definitely a two-way thing, with both the EU and the USA benefitting from the arrangement. The US managed to keep its military hegemony, but Europe could pretend it didn't need to become a military power and concentrate on installing political unification, which has prevented war and allowed unprecedented economic progress.
To call this US imperialism misses the point. Europe can look back on 75 years of peace and prosperity. Long may it continue, if you ask me. The other pesky fact about the jingoistic use of "US imperialism" is that if it is solely imperialism that the US is pursuing, they are doing it pretty badly, allowing a far greater economic power (China) to arise that is increasingly in a position to threaten its hegemony.
No, it's not imperialism per se that drives the US. It is an almost naive belief in the power of free markets to bring about democratic revolutions in other countries, as though free markets alone would create replicas of US values all over the world. I guess you could call that cultural imperialism but it is a pretty soft use of the word. Particularly in light of the fact that its not happening as planned.
IMO the US lost its way by hitching the enlightenment values enshrined in its founding documents to purely business interests. With that it lost both its credibility and made some pretty dumb foreign policy decisions, putting money and trade above values.
PS, as I see it, this last point is one of the major factors in the moral vacuity that has now befallen the US itself and is hollowing it out from within.
times like that I show my age. 
