Random Politics Thread

[Red Herring]

Do you believe this false flag stuff? What evidence are you basing that on?

I think if the U.S. is trying to convince people of something, makes outlandish claims, and doesn't have solid evidence to back it up, it is understandable people would be suspicious. I know I'm dumping on Colin Powell, but he was a respected moderate figure who nonetheless persisted in fabricating claims he knew were dubious. Orders are orders after all.

All the cries about "appeasement" reverberating now (as they were in the early 2000s) aren't helping to convince people that this is different.

Not sure what you mean by false flag. A false flag operation, to the best of my knowledge, is an attack by A that is made to look like an attack by B to justify an aggression against B. So far there has been no attack and so there can be no talk of a false flag operation (yet). Theoretically, sure, the US could fake a Russian attack in the next few days. But I think a genuine Russian attack will be more likely. They did this before, with the Krim, and got away with it.

In fact, if you look back at Putin's years in office, every time his poll numbers go down he is starting some form of military conflict to push those numbers upwards. The guy has a history.

This whole conflict, well at least the current heating up of it, is due to massive Russian troop movements at the Ukranian border. Russia doesn't deny those movements are happening. They just refuse to give specific numbers so the estimates are based on satellite images, etc. According to Russia, it's the West making them do this due to too much geostrategical proximity to Ukraine (and other neighbors). Over here in Europe, I haven't heard anyone claim those troop movements weren't real. Not the Russians, not allies of Russia, not people hostile to NATO or the US. And there are a lot of people in Germany who have certain sympathies for Russia or at least a string interest in good relationships! The debate is not about whether or not those troops are actually there. The debate is about whether or not the movements are a) in preparation of an attack or b) just a demonstration of power to get Western nations to pledge that Ukraine will never be allowed to join NATO. Will Putin withdraw the troops, use them or just leave them there for a while? I'm not aware of anybody seriously doubting their existence.


Is a false flag attack and a war started by the US to start trouble from home possible? Sure, I guess, but Occam's razor seems much more plausible to me. No, Russia is no empire of evil. But it is an authoritarian state with a strong man at the top who needs to be seen as tough all the time or he might lose everything. As to whether Russia's demands are justified ... I'd say they are understandable but not acceptable. The funny thing is that I completely understand how Russian would not want NATO members in its immediate vicinity. However, there is good reason why those neighbors are seeking protection from Russia.
I recently heard a German public radio podcast about the question of who said what and who promised what back at the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 2+4 negotiations.

The Russian claim to this day is that the West (specifically Bush and Kohl and their diplomatic teams) promised them that a reunified Germany would remain neutral and not join NATO. The Western narrative is that no such promises were made. In that podcast they read out verbatim protocols and momoranda from those negotiations. To summarize, there were no explicit promises made but there was a lot of back and forth and a lot of allusions. The Russians declared that they had strong security interest in a neutral buffer zone. They knew had no claim to it, but hoped the Bush administration would be understanding and cooperative. Ind in the end the West said: Do you guys agree to the principle of selfdetermination of nations and that each country should be abl to pick their allegiance? The Russians couldn't help but agree because that was their official policy. They thought that the negitiations would take years anyway and that if they agreed that Germany could, in principle, chose their allegiance, then that would just be the starting point for long negotiations at the end of which there would hopefully be a new cooperative organosation where East and West would be working hand in hand and demilitarize. Bush and Kohl however jumped at that and publically announced that they had a deal. The reunited Germany joined NATO and Russia has felt cheated ever since. I'd say they were outplayed and can understand the anger and concern about losing their sphere of influence.

So this conflict is about spheres of influence and actually goes back to 1990. I get that you have little trust in what the US government says about the actions of foreign governments when starting a´conflicts abroad to distract from trouble at home is not exactly unheard of. However, this is not just Biden vs Putin*. There are a few more parties incolved and, as I said, to the best of my knowledge the Russian's aren't denying the troop movements. They re just denying that they are planning an imminant attack. At the same time they also made it clear that so far the talks have not advanced to their satisfaction and explicitely refused to deescalate or say they won't further escalate.



*

In fact, the assumption that the entire conflict is basically an American invention due to inner-American reasons when there is an entitre continent living next door to Russia that could speak to how real they think those threats are (and remember, back when Dubya started the war, Europe for the most part refused to join and American popularity in the EU dropped dramatically, this time there is mostly agreement that the threat is real) is a bit weird. In other words, your skepticism reminds me a bit of those people thinking the other 190 nations on the planet all cooperated, faked deaths and ruined their economies in order to lend credence to an evil conspiracy by a handful of Democrats to damage Trump. Your skepticism is understandable, given past escapades of previous governments and Biden's less than stellar record, but I think you are making the mistake of looking at an international conflict with, well, very American eyes. Maybe you see things too strongly in terms of how they affect the US. But not everything is caused by America, triggered by America or secretly directed by America or about America. That being said, I don't doubt the thought of how an escalation would affect his poll numbers will have crossed Biden's mind.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Not sure what you mean by false flag. A false flag operation, to the best of my knowledge, is an attack by A that is made to look like an attack by B to justify an aggression against B. So far there has been no attack and so there can be no talk of a false flag operation (yet). Theoretically, sure, the US could fake a Russian attack in the next few days. But I think a genuine Russian attack will be more likely. They did this before, with the Krim, and got away with it.

The idea being pushed is that Russia will engage in a false flag attack as a justification for invasion. Not the U.S.

It seems to me that getting Ukraine as a prize has been a strategic goal of people in the Biden administration for some time (see my link). Just like how Iraq was a strategic goal of people in the Bush administration .

And so I think, given that, people in the administration will say and do anything to at least keep that "prize" in play. Wouldn't be the first time.

*

In fact, the assumption that the entire conflict is basically an American invention due to inner-American reasons when there is an entitre continent living next door to Russia that could speak to how real they think those threats are (and remember, back when Dubya started the war, Europe for the most part refused to join and American popularity in the EU dropped dramatically, this time there is mostly agreement that the threat is real) is a bit weird. In other words, your skepticism reminds me a bit of those people thinking the other 190 nations on the planet all cooperated, faked deaths and ruined their economies in order to lend credence to an evil conspiracy by a handful of Democrats to damage Trump. Your skepticism is understandable, given past escapades of previous governments and Biden's less than stellar record, but I think you are making the mistake of looking at an international conflict with, well, very American eyes. Maybe you see things too strongly in terms of how they affect the US. But not everything is caused by America, triggered by America or secretly directed by America or about America. That being said, I don't doubt the thought of how an escalation would affect his poll numbers will have crossed Biden's mind.

Except apparently there isn't an international consensus. Earlier you were calling out the German government for not being fully on board with it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

*

In fact, the assumption that the entire conflict is basically an American invention due to inner-American reasons when there is an entitre continent living next door to Russia that could speak to how real they think those threats are (and remember, back when Dubya started the war, Europe for the most part refused to join and American popularity in the EU dropped dramatically, this time there is mostly agreement that the threat is real) is a bit weird. In other words, your skepticism reminds me a bit of those people thinking the other 190 nations on the planet all cooperated, faked deaths and ruined their economies in order to lend credence to an evil conspiracy by a handful of Democrats to damage Trump. Your skepticism is understandable, given past escapades of previous governments and Biden's less than stellar record, but I think you are making the mistake of looking at an international conflict with, well, very American eyes. Maybe you see things too strongly in terms of how they affect the US. But not everything is caused by America, triggered by America or secretly directed by America or about America. That being said, I don't doubt the thought of how an escalation would affect his poll numbers will have crossed Biden's mind.

My impression is that this is simply what left wing democrats narrative these days. Since they go through all this in a way that they blame national establishment for everything. What is indeed understandable. However in global perspective they simply give it too much power and ignore other countries as actual political forces. Somewhere I read that situation in US is to bad that the two blocks are more uncomfortable with each other than with foreign forces. Therefore outsiders are even welcome helping hand in winning domestic cultural war. What is kinda absurd but judging by what can be found around the internet this conclusion seems to fit the picture.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Are you saying the flaws in the system, have nothing to do with Capitalism? I think it has to do with capitalism, but as well as socialism and democracy etc. They use all the systems for selfish gain, simply by using legal and illegal means to take control over every institution to secure their power. It doesn't even have to be "money" itself, it is assets, it is influence, it is debts and favors among a very tiny group of very powerful people. And sometimes, they make mistakes. Sometimes, they become so removed from regular society, they don't even realize how much they fucked it up. They have only been concerned with winning. Regardless of the casualties they created along the way. And every once in a while, they abandon ship and move to the next country. Because they have zero alliance for any nation.

You said last year it wasn't actually capitalism.

 

[Red Herring]

The idea being pushed is that Russia will engage in a false flag attack as a justification for invasion. Not the U.S.

Ah, okay, misunderstanding. Well, that might be. But I'm not sure they'd even need that.

It seems to me that getting Ukraine as a prize has been a strategic goal of people in the Biden administration for some time (see my link). Just like how Iraq was a strategic goal of people in the Bush administration .

I'm just not as sure as you seem to be that the two situations are comparable.

And so I think, given that, people in the administration will say and do anything to at least keep that "prize" in play. Wouldn't be the first time.

True. Reason enough to consider it possible. Whether you consider it to be likely comes down to a judgement call.

Except apparently there isn't an international consensus. Earlier you were calling out the German government for not being fully on board with it.

No, you misundertood me. The German government doesn't doubt that there are troop movements. The inner-German conflict is about something else. For historical reasons, Germany has long flattered itself to be a bit of a broker between Russia and the West. We have strong econimic links (also to China, which is a different story) and cultural and personal links (actually quite a few Russian immigrants in Germany). For decades the strategy has been to deescalate and "tame the bear" by making those ties so close an open conflict would be too painful for both sides. I believe that that is also part of the reason behind Germany's insistance on Nord Stream 2.

Within Germany there are two large camps. Those who think Russia is a clear aggressor who should be stopped at any cost and those who think we must find a peaceful solution and war is to be avoided at any cost. Both with Russia and with China, the country has been devided and indecicive about how to handle these tensions. Again, part opportunism, part idealism.
The official position of the current German government is that IF Russia attacks they will support Ukraine, also with weapons, if need be (I don't think sending troops was ever mentioned). However, they'd like not to talk about it too much and focus on the talks. So far they have only been sending a military hospital and some helmets. That is a very German thing to do (I mean, we do sell arms to dictators, but only if there are no consequences to fear for us).
Scholz is still betting on a diplomatic solution and trying the double act of calming Ukraine by promising help and solidarity while not offending Russia too much with specific, too aggressive assistance. Part of that is laudable idealism and the genuine hope that the situation can be solved by diplomacy. Germans tend to really, really hate military conflict. And part of that is cowardice and dangerous indecisiveness (the part that I criticized).
The current German government is not fully on board with preparing a military escalation because, yes, the American narrative in all this (the highly specific, detailed predictions about an imminant attack in about two days) does sound a bit alarmist and shrill and hopefully there still is time for a peaceful solution (I personally think this would be a good time to reintroduce that idea of a neutral buffer zone or third option security network).

 

[Red Herring]

My impression is that this is simply what left wing democrats narrative these days. Since they go through all this in a way that they blame national establishment for everything. What is indeed understandable. However in global perspective they simply give it too much power and ignore other countries as actual political forces. Somewhere I read that situation in US is to bad that the two blocks are more uncomfortable with each other than with foreign forces. Therefore outsiders are even welcome helping hand in winning domestic cultural war. What is kinda absurd but judging by what can be found around the internet this conclusion seems to fit the picture.

Yes. Pretty much this.

 

[Red Herring]

@Virtual ghost :

 

[Virtual ghost]

Canada: PM Trudeau invokes emergency powers to deal with protests


The headline indeed sounds kinda strange. Somehow it doesn't fit into the picture of "Canada".

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Ah, okay, misunderstanding. Well, that might be. But I'm not sure they'd even need that.


I'm just not as sure as you seem to be that the two situations are comparable.


True. Reason enough to consider it possible. Whether you consider it to be likely comes down to a judgement call.


No, you misundertood me. The German government doesn't doubt that there are troop movements. The inner-German conflict is about something else. For historical reasons, Germany has long flattered itself to be a bit of a broker between Russia and the West. We have strong econimic links (also to China, which is a different story) and cultural and personal links (actually quite a few Russian immigrants in Germany). For decades the strategy has been to deescalate and "tame the bear" by making those ties so close an open conflict would be too painful for both sides. I believe that that is also part of the reason behind Germany's insistance on Nord Stream 2.

Within Germany there are two large camps. Those who think Russia is a clear aggressor who should be stopped at any cost and those who think we must find a peaceful solution and war is to be avoided at any cost. Both with Russia and with China, the country has been devided and indecicive about how to handle these tensions. Again, part opportunism, part idealism.
The official position of the current German government is that IF Russia attacks they will support Ukraine, also with weapons, if need be (I don't think sending troops was ever mentioned). However, they'd like not to talk about it too much and focus on the talks. So far they have only been sending a military hospital and some helmets. That is a very German thing to do (I mean, we do sell arms to dictators, but only if there are no consequences to fear for us).
Scholz is still betting on a diplomatic solution and trying the double act of calming Ukraine by promising help and solidarity while not offending Russia too much with specific, too aggressive assistance. Part of that is laudable idealism and the genuine hope that the situation can be solved by diplomacy. Germans tend to really, really hate military conflict. And part of that is cowardice and dangerous indecisiveness (the part that I criticized).
The current German government is not fully on board with preparing a military escalation because, yes, the American narrative in all this (the highly specific, detailed predictions about an imminant attack in about two days) does sound a bit alarmist and shrill and hopefully there still is time for a peaceful solution (I personally think this would be a good time to reintroduce that idea of a neutral buffer zone or third option security network).

To me it reeks of "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", so again, I don't see why people are being faulted for a reluctance to get on board with this. The cries to "not engage in appeasement" I've started to hear are also not helping here of convincing me that this is a good idea.

For me it's also a matter of not trusting Joe Biden's judgement on matters of war and peace. This is because of his actual record. I'm not sure why people are equating this with me not trusting "the other side" because this is apparently the side I'm supposed to be part of.

In any case, you are just reiterating my point that there is not the consensus on this that you are claiming. You also keep brining up this thing about "he agrees that there are troops".

I never said that there weren't troops. I think we should be very careful about the situation with Russian troops on the border and not act rashly just because "someone needs to do something". I don't trust the people involved to show good judgement call, and for me, the fact that the president was Nobel Prize winner Obama's VP isn't sufficient to overcome this.

All I see from you are cries that "someone needs to do something".

Can you tell me exactly what that "something" is?

 

[Virtual ghost]

@Virtual ghost :

I don't know German but I suppose the picture makes it easy to guess the point. But to be honest I never really understood what happened to your ex Chancellor. This just seems like a strange change in career path.

 

[Red Herring]

I don't know German but I suppose the picture makes it easy to guess the point. But to be honest I never really understood what happened to your ex Chancellor. This just seems like a strange change in career path.

Your guess is as good as mine. From what I know, Schröder was getting along well with Putin back when he was chancelor. He has always had a bit of a grandiose personality, a but vain, dressing in expensive designer suits and smoking expensive cigars - things that he was criticized for in Germany, especially as a social democrat. Russia probably offered him the luxury and the high status he thought he deserved. He has quite an ego. On top of that, the SPD, as centrist as it has long become, does have strong historical roots in a position that is potentially skeptical of the West and more understanding of the Russian position. If you are not a big fan of the US, turning towards Russia is the traditional alternative, it's like a reflex. Till this day out far left and our far right can agree on one thing: that the US are not exactly a force for good and that friendship and peaceful cooperation with unjusty maligned Russia is actually more in the German interest. Schröder's years as a chancelor were the years of G.W Bus, when distancing yourself from America was standard and actually might have won Schröder his reelection.

I remember, many years ago (!), when my mother said something along the line of "everybody criticizes Schröder for going to Russia, but I think he is actually doing this for his country. Without him being there, who knows if we'd still have enough gas and if things would always be so peaceful" ... basically an altrustic lobbyist.

All these explanations could be true at the same time.

 

[Red Herring]

To me it reeks of "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud", so again, I don't see why people are being faulted for a reluctance to get on board with this. The cries to "not engage in appeasement" I've started to hear are also not helping here of convincing me that this is a good idea.

I'm all for diplomatic solutions. However, clearly stating if and how you would be willing to help an ally in case of an invasion is not warmongering. talk softly and carry a big stick!

For me it's also a matter of not trusting Joe Biden's judgement on matters of war and peace. This is because of his actual record. I'm not sure why people are equating this with me not trusting "the other side" because this is apparently the side I'm supposed to be part of.

I wouldn't trust his judgement either. My point is that you don't have to. You can trust the judgement of large parts of Europe instead. Not sure who exactly is "the other" side here or what you are referring to, sorry.

In any case, you are just reiterating my point that there is not the consensus on this that you are claiming. You also keep brining up this thing about "he agrees that there are troops".

I never said that there weren't troops. I think we should be very careful about the situation with Russian troops on the border and not act rashly just because "someone needs to do something". I don't trust the people involved to show good judgement call, and for me, the fact that the president was Nobel Prize winner Obama's VP isn't sufficient to overcome this.

All I see from you are cries that "someone needs to do something".

Can you tell me exactly what that "something" is?

???
I think we are increasingly talking at cross purposes here. I thought you were doubting the existence of those troups and asked me why I believed they existed. There is concensus on their existence. There is no concensus on what their presence means.
What were you talking about then?

And, yes, something has to be done about this. I agree that a precipitated militarization of the conflict should be avoided and that the specific American warnings are shady. However, the threat is real and the problem is old. The need for a solution is real and so is the urgency... because I think Putin IS capable of invading.

As for what that "something" is, I already explained in my previous posts. Again: finding a mutual solution to Ukraine's concerns about Russian dominance and Russian concerns about NATO possibly at some point accepting Ukraine - in the form of a third, sort of neutral alternative. Call it a buffer zone, call it an alternative network of Baltic and Eastern European states. There are several options. If all that fails and Russia starts to invade, support Ukraine, not just with words but with equipment, logistics, etc and whatever else they need.


Also, I'm not shouting, I'm not crying. So not sure why you are using that sort of language with me.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Your guess is as good as mine. From what I know, Schröder was getting along well with Putin back when he was chancelor. He has always had a bit of a grandiose personality, a but vain, dressing in expensive designer suits and smoking expensive cigars - things that he was criticized for in Germany, especially as a social democrat. Russia probably offered him the luxury and the high status he thought he deserved. He has quite an ego. On top of that, the SPD, as centrist as it has long become, does have strong historical roots in a position that is potentially skeptical of the West and more understanding of the Russian position. If you are not a big fan of the US, turning towards Russia is the traditional alternative, it's like a reflex. Till this day out far left and our far right can agree on one thing: that the US are not exactly a force for good and that friendship and peaceful cooperation with unjusty maligned Russia is actually more in the German interest. Schröder's years as a chancelor were the years of G.W Bus, when distancing yourself from America was standard and actually might have won Schröder his reelection.

I remember, many years ago (!), when my mother said something along the line of "everybody criticizes Schröder for going to Russia, but I think he is actually doing this for his country. Without him being there, who knows if we'd still have enough gas and if things would always be so peaceful" ... basically an altrustic lobbyist.

All these explanations could be true at the same time.

Well, I meant purely on personal level and out of curiosity. Since in political sense I have something similar at home. Center right is much more involved in this crisis while center left is more like "whatever, let them be" or "I hope it doesn't get too bad". Everyone else is kinda quiet about this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Also, I'm not shouting, I'm not crying. So not sure why you are using that sort of language with me.

Because he and his countrymen are going for 2 years through covid without healthcare as a human right, their media are less clear on pretty much every topic, their politics is less trustworthy and we don't have this deep cultural war going on, they have very limited benefits regarding the basics ..... etc. What simply leaves a tool on a person. We just have to sit tight a the odds are that everything will be ok, while for them that prediction is harder to make. This is perhaps politically incorrect statement but context of your exchange matters. You objectively can't really be fully on the same page in this situation.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I'm all for diplomatic solutions. However, clearly stating if and how you would be willing to help an ally in case of an invasion is not warmongering. talk softly and carry a big stick!

I misinterpreted. I apologize.

I wouldn't trust his judgement either. My point is that you don't have to. You can trust the judgement of large parts of Europe instead. Not sure who exactly is "the other" side here or what you are referring to, sorry.

Republicans.

???
I think we are increasingly talking at cross purposes here. I thought you were doubting the existence of those troups and asked me why I believed they existed. There is concensus on their existence. There is no concensus on what their presence means.
What were you talking about then?

And, yes, something has to be done about this. I agree that a precipitated militarization of the conflict should be avoided and that the specific American warnings are shady. However, the threat is real and the problem is old. The need for a solution is real and so is the urgency... because I think Putin IS capable of invading.

As for what that "something" is, I already explained in my previous posts. Again: finding a mutual solution to Ukraine's concerns about Russian dominance and Russian concerns about NATO possibly at some point accepting Ukraine - in the form of a third, sort of neutral alternative. Call it a buffer zone, call it an alternative network of Baltic and Eastern European states. There are several options. If all that fails and Russia starts to invade, support Ukraine, not just with words but with equipment, logistics, etc and whatever else they need.

That would be ideal. I don't think this is what the U.S. wants to do. I doubt the U.S would accept not being able to bring Ukraine further within their sphere of influence.

Also, I'm not shouting, I'm not crying. So not sure why you are using that sort of language with me.

No, I asked you if you thought Russia was planning a false flag attack.

US intelligence suggests ‘false flag’ operation Russia could use to justify attack on Ukraine: report

The United States has received new intelligence suggesting that a “false flag” operation by Russia is in the works to justify an invasion into Ukraine, The Washington Post reported, citing numerous…

thehill.com

“The last point that I would make — and I know this has been the subject of a fair amount of back-and-forth between the administration and the press over the course of the past week: We are firmly convinced that the Russians, should they decide to move forward with an invasion, are looking hard at the creation of a pretext — a false-flag operation — something that they generate and try to blame on the Ukrainians as a trigger for military action,” he said.

This is apparently what I am supposed to believe. Given that the main place I hear about false flag attacks is from the Alex Jones crowd, I have my doubts.

You weren't aware that these were the talking points circulating in the U.S?

"We can’t pinpoint the day at this point, and we can’t pinpoint the hour, but what we can say is that there is a credible prospect that a Russian military action would take place even before the end of the Olympics," he added later.

Sounds so Colin Powell at the U.N to me.

 

[Red Herring]

I misinterpreted. I apologize.

I also misinterpreted your post, we're fine.

Republicans.

At no point did I say you sympathized with Republicans or that if you mistrust Biden you must be with Trump. Are you merging debates with different people here?

That would be ideal. I don't think this is what the U.S. wants to do. I doubt the U.S would accept not being able to bring Ukraine further within their sphere of influence.

Quite possible. But you asked me what I considered a good solution.

No, I asked you if you thought Russia was planning a false flag attack.

US intelligence suggests ‘false flag’ operation Russia could use to justify attack on Ukraine: report

The United States has received new intelligence suggesting that a “false flag” operation by Russia is in the works to justify an invasion into Ukraine, The Washington Post reported, citing numerous…

thehill.com

I did not understand that question then. How could I possibly know what they are planning. That's the whole conundrum, nobody knows. I never asked you to believe they are planning a false flag attack.

This is apparently what I am supposed to believe. Given that the main place I hear about false flag attacks is from the Alex Jones crowd, I have my doubts.

You weren't aware that these were the talking points circulating in the U.S?

Well, I am not American television, I am not Alex Jones and I didn't ask you to believe in that theory. I said, if you don't trust Biden's judgement, trust the judgement of Europeans when it comes to Putin and Russia because the affect us much more on a daily basis and we are much closer to them culturally, geographically, etc.

Sounds so Colin Powell at the U.N to me.

Yey, you said so. However, as I stated, even if all the predictions of US intelligence services are false, which they very well may be, that doesn't really solve the issue. The future of Ukraine (and the larger post-cold-war dilemma) is still unsolved.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Because he and his countrymen are going for 2 years through covid without healthcare as a human right, their media are less clear on pretty much every topic, their politics is less trustworthy and we don't have this deep cultural war going on, they have very limited benefits regarding the basics ..... etc. What simply leaves a tool on a person. We just have to sit tight a the odds are that everything will be ok, while for them that prediction is harder to make. This is perhaps politically incorrect statement but context of your exchange matters. You objectively can't really be fully on the same page in this situation.

I think in this you may have a point.

I think Red Herring is pretty well informed about American politics, but I think there might be things about American culture that she might not be as familiar with as someone who has been swimming in them for thirty years.

One of these is the ways Americans discuss and conceive of foreign policy, when they do so at all. You know the idealistic speeches you hear about America being the protector of freedom for the whole world? Lots of Americans in both parties believe that; it's not just rhetoric. I'm beginning to think the politicians and people in government believe that too, which I don't think is a good thing.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I also misinterpreted your post, we're fine.

At no point did I say you sympathized with Republicans or that if you mistrust Biden you must be with Trump. Are you merging debates with different people here?

Virtual Ghost, I thought, was saying something about my positions being standard left Democrat, and attributed that to mistrust between the two sides and the division of the culture war. I'm not sure how it applies here because this is a Democratic president I'm criticiizing; we are theoretically on the same side of the culture war. What does this have to do with the fact that I don't trust Republicans when it's a Democrat I'm not trusting?

I did not understand that question then. How could I possibly know what they are planning. That's the whole conundrum, nobody knows. I never asked you to believe they are planning a false flag attack.

I know. I wondered what you thought. Now it seems you are skeptical of these claims, which is good.

Well, I am not American television, I am not Alex Jones and I didn't ask you to believe in that theory. I said, if you don't trust Biden's judgement, trust the judgement of Europeans when it comes to Putin and Russia because the affect us much more on a daily basis and we are much closer to them culturally, geographically, etc.

Do you think the U.S has an important role in this situation? If so, it is very much relevant what the U.S. government is saying about it, and what the desired result in the American government might be. Regardless of what Europe might consider to be a solution to this, it seems to me that the judgement of Biden is a matter of concern for everyone, unless perhaps I really am off about my understanding and the U.S.'s role in this is minor.

Yey, you said so. However, as I stated, even if all the predictions of US intelligence services are false, which they very well may be, that doesn't really solve the issue. The future of Ukraine (and the larger post-cold-war dilemma) is still unsolved.

I'm not convinced that the goal of the BIden administration is to create the kind of buffer zone you mentioned. I don' think that is something they would settle for. Part of Biden's criticizing of Trump during primary season was that he was a poor steward of American empire (well, without saying the "e" word). So I think it's possible that for his administration ,keeping or bringing Ukraine into our sphere of influence is the goal.

Perhaps that is obvious to you, but that is not in an obvious conclusion within the context of American culture. This is being talked about as a noble undertaking to "not give into appeasement" when I think WWI analogies fit the situation better, but the role of the US in that one wasn't as big so who cares.

The very fact that "avoiding another Munich" and not "acting like Neville Chamberlain" is being floated about in US media (and probably by politicians too) makes me think that the buffer zone idea is really a non-starter in US foreign policy circles (doing that would be appeasement). I worry that Americans are not as weary enough of this as some people are and are prepared to gobble up these talking points. I've seen my Mom's opinion shift on this within a few days.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I think in this you may have a point.

I think Red Herring is pretty well informed about American politics, but I think there might be things about American culture that she might not be as familiar with as someone who has been swimming in them for thirty years.

One of these is the ways Americans discuss and conceive of foreign policy, when they do so at all. You know the idealistic speeches you hear about America being the protector of freedom for the whole world? Lots of Americans in both parties believe that; it's not just rhetoric. I'm beginning to think the politicians and people in government believe that too, which I don't think is a good thing.

Well I am simply reacting to my impression that it seems that the mental health in these threads has gone visibly down over the last two years (and it wasn't that great even before that, if we compare to 10 years ago).


While Herring is basically rediscovering strength that her side actually does something that fundamentally matters in the world. Since on this side of the Atlantic the atmosphere is much more positive and big plans are being made. Therefore the two of you will struggle with being on the same page regarding the conclusions. Since you simply don't live the same life.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Well I am simply reacting to my impression that it seems that the mental health in these threads has gone visibly down over the last two years (and it wasn't that great even before that, if we compare to 10 years ago).

Yes, because people believed that because we had Obama everything was fixed, even though he didn't fix anything. Just him being there was enough to fix everything somehow. He didn't need to actually do anything.

Oops, turns out to fix things, you actually need to fix things rather than talk about hope and the power of believing in America.

In those days, I'd have conversations with people articulating my issues and why I don't feel optimistic about things and the response would often just be "Obama." Or people would say "you're too cynical".