Neoliberals have been overspending on war and invading every part of the planet since the end of WW2.
I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere. Meanwhile Russia actually is invading Europe (Ukraine is part of Europe).
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia. The ones who are most likely to be attacked by Russia.
If they were so worried about an imminent Russian invasion or threat after Ukraine, they would not be pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine. Instead they would be conserving resources.
I don’t think European countries are “pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine”. Are European countries donating weapons to Israel? I think the US has given military aid to Israel, but I don’t know if Europe has.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong. Maybe these countries should do more to stop what Israel is doing. Maybe they should sanction Israel. I think that could make sense.
Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia
And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.
The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.
Are European countries donating weapons to Israel?
Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong
Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.
I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza, and the West Bank, then I think that is fair. Europe probably should do more on that front.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza
They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?
Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.
I still think these are two different issues. If you think Europe and the UK should do more to try and stop Israel’s conduct in Palestine then that’s fair enough. Maybe the UK should sanction Israel and/or take other measures.
I do think Russia is a threat to Europe though. When they were building up troops on the border of Ukraine in 2021/2022 they denied that they were going to launch a new invasion of Ukraine. But that’s what they ended up doing in February 2022. Apparently Russia is now building up a stockpile of tanks besides what they’re using for the invasion of Ukraine. So it’s possible that Russia might attack another European country in the next few years, as senior military figures across Europe seem to be predicting.
If you think Europe and the UK should do more to try and stop Israel’s conduct in Palestine then that’s fair enough.
I’m talking more big picture. You have to look at geopolitics from the big picture, and the little details as well. What kinds and quantities of weapons will your new defense spending provide? What social services will your government cut using the excuse of managing the budget? What are the energy and mineral costs of these new weapons? Are these new weapons actually of the type that will address the threat profile from Russia towards the UK? Where will these weapons be used? Who is gaining the money from these military contracts?
Once you start asking these questions, the whole narrative around western rearmament falls apart. Especially when you look at how these people who want to ramp up military spending are simultaneously pursuing further austerity and de-industrialization. Your government are theives stripping out the copper from your walls, and promising you that they will use the copper wire to build an electric fence around your house. Except also an electric fence doesn’t protect you from the threats you actually face, and the thief doesn’t have the equipment to build you a fence.
As someone living in Europe, I actually do want to see this continent prosper, but I am seeing people repeating the same mistakes of the pre-ww1 era.
I do think Russia is a threat to Europe though.
This idea is contradicted by 3 factors
Russia was willing to prop up European industry by selling it cheap energy and commodities right up until Europe sanctioned Russia. Hell, even today, Russians are indirectly selling gas to Europeans.
Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine and Georgia is based on unique factors that do not apply to the rest of Europe (the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders. Remember, the Germans were able to march all the way to Moscow by invading through the border at Ukraine in living memory. That border is very difficult to defend).
The idea of “eurasianism” was popularized starting in Russia, that is, the idea of a pan-Eurasian economic and political cooperation. It is easy to see why such an idea would appeal to Russians, since it is in the long-term interests of Russians to cooperate with their neighbors and multi-lateral trade between India, China, Russia and Europe would allow these countries to economically surpass and de-couple from the US.
Now I do not assume that the average European is going to look at Russia after the invasion very fondly, however, Europeans must accept the fact that a) Russia isn’t going anywhere, b) They have 0 incentive to invade Europe unprovoked and finally, c) the de-industrialized neoliberal west has overextended itself in the post covid years to an unsustainable degree. At this rate, the west will be ripped apart by internal forces faster than external ones.
I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe. When they were building up forces on the borders of Ukraine in 2021/2022, they said they weren’t about to launch a new invasion of Ukraine. But they did just that.
Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics. The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.
The idea that we should just trust Putin’s government to stay away from Europe seems pretty crazy, given their actual behaviour.
Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. I don’t think it is. Ukraine and Georgia shouldn’t have been invaded.
I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe.
Trusted is the wrong word. Prediction is better. The overwhelming majority of wars occur around previously predictable flashpoints. This does not mean that wars do not break out without reason, but this is rare. The same goes with Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had been predicted all the way back in Clinton’s time, with some of his advisors explicitly being concerned that arming Ukraine would undermine the post-cold war order and security in Europe.
Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics.
On what basis, and for what gain?
The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.
Precisely. You are positing that the Russians will invade and fight against NATO, triggering WW3. But why? What would the geopolitical drive be for such an action on the Russian part?
Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.
The behaviors of states and nations have nothing to do with “legitimacy”, which is a made up concept. On the Russian side, western military encroachment into Ukraine was viewed as an existential threat, and they had communicated this view over and over to the west even before Putin’s rise to power. When dialogue failed to produce results, and the maidan coup happened, the Russians supported the separatists in the Donbass. Even then, they signed 2 ceasefires (Minsk 1 and Minsk 2), both of which were still broken. The Russians thought that Trump would solve the situation, but he didn’t because he generally tends to fumble just about everything.
Then after all that, they decided to launch basically a decapitation strike on Ukraine in Feb 2022. By April 2022, the strike hadn’t worked, but the Ukrainians and Russians were in the process of another treaty, which as far as I remember, Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to not take. It was only then that the attrition war mess started.
My point is, western powers had many many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. Russia also had the choice of not invading, but every Russian leader made it clear that a Ukraine militarily integreated into the west is a national security catastrophe for them. That includes everyone from Gobachev (the one who dissolved the USSR on behalf of the west), Yeltsin (the one installed by the west), and Putin (the Russian liberal who initially wanted to join NATO until the west made it clear that they basically wanted to continue the cold war).
In essence, every russian leader since the late 1980s started out as pro-west, and yet the west simply does not want to end the cold war. So now you’re back to the same situation as before the dissolution of the USSR. The formation of 2 competing blocs that engage in proxy wars to contain each other’s power. And let’s be clear, Russia is not the only taking military action. The west’s military adventurism in west asia directly threatens the security of Russia and China, and India, and Europe. Part of the reason for the west’s fanatical levels of support for Israel is precisely because it is a convenient launching pad for de-stabilization actions taken in the heart of Eurasia.
It’s funny that you think Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine because a western-aligned Ukraine is apparently an “existential” threat to Russia. Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia. Russia has some of the most powerful military capabilities in the world. If Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO. Russia would still have great military resources that they could use to defend Russia.
The reason some Ukrainians want to join NATO is because of the very real existential threat that Russia has posed to the state of Ukraine. But that existential threat just doesn’t matter, right Dmitri?
I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere. Meanwhile Russia actually is invading Europe (Ukraine is part of Europe).
Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia. The ones who are most likely to be attacked by Russia.
I don’t think European countries are “pouring their already strained reserves to commit genocide in Palestine”. Are European countries donating weapons to Israel? I think the US has given military aid to Israel, but I don’t know if Europe has.
Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong. Maybe these countries should do more to stop what Israel is doing. Maybe they should sanction Israel. I think that could make sense.
Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?
And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.
The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.
Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.
Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.
I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.
If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza, and the West Bank, then I think that is fair. Europe probably should do more on that front.
Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.
They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.
Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?
Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.
I still think these are two different issues. If you think Europe and the UK should do more to try and stop Israel’s conduct in Palestine then that’s fair enough. Maybe the UK should sanction Israel and/or take other measures.
I do think Russia is a threat to Europe though. When they were building up troops on the border of Ukraine in 2021/2022 they denied that they were going to launch a new invasion of Ukraine. But that’s what they ended up doing in February 2022. Apparently Russia is now building up a stockpile of tanks besides what they’re using for the invasion of Ukraine. So it’s possible that Russia might attack another European country in the next few years, as senior military figures across Europe seem to be predicting.
I’m talking more big picture. You have to look at geopolitics from the big picture, and the little details as well. What kinds and quantities of weapons will your new defense spending provide? What social services will your government cut using the excuse of managing the budget? What are the energy and mineral costs of these new weapons? Are these new weapons actually of the type that will address the threat profile from Russia towards the UK? Where will these weapons be used? Who is gaining the money from these military contracts?
Once you start asking these questions, the whole narrative around western rearmament falls apart. Especially when you look at how these people who want to ramp up military spending are simultaneously pursuing further austerity and de-industrialization. Your government are theives stripping out the copper from your walls, and promising you that they will use the copper wire to build an electric fence around your house. Except also an electric fence doesn’t protect you from the threats you actually face, and the thief doesn’t have the equipment to build you a fence.
As someone living in Europe, I actually do want to see this continent prosper, but I am seeing people repeating the same mistakes of the pre-ww1 era.
This idea is contradicted by 3 factors
Now I do not assume that the average European is going to look at Russia after the invasion very fondly, however, Europeans must accept the fact that a) Russia isn’t going anywhere, b) They have 0 incentive to invade Europe unprovoked and finally, c) the de-industrialized neoliberal west has overextended itself in the post covid years to an unsustainable degree. At this rate, the west will be ripped apart by internal forces faster than external ones.
I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe. When they were building up forces on the borders of Ukraine in 2021/2022, they said they weren’t about to launch a new invasion of Ukraine. But they did just that.
Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics. The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.
The idea that we should just trust Putin’s government to stay away from Europe seems pretty crazy, given their actual behaviour.
Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia. I don’t think it is. Ukraine and Georgia shouldn’t have been invaded.
Trusted is the wrong word. Prediction is better. The overwhelming majority of wars occur around previously predictable flashpoints. This does not mean that wars do not break out without reason, but this is rare. The same goes with Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had been predicted all the way back in Clinton’s time, with some of his advisors explicitly being concerned that arming Ukraine would undermine the post-cold war order and security in Europe.
On what basis, and for what gain?
Precisely. You are positing that the Russians will invade and fight against NATO, triggering WW3. But why? What would the geopolitical drive be for such an action on the Russian part?
The behaviors of states and nations have nothing to do with “legitimacy”, which is a made up concept. On the Russian side, western military encroachment into Ukraine was viewed as an existential threat, and they had communicated this view over and over to the west even before Putin’s rise to power. When dialogue failed to produce results, and the maidan coup happened, the Russians supported the separatists in the Donbass. Even then, they signed 2 ceasefires (Minsk 1 and Minsk 2), both of which were still broken. The Russians thought that Trump would solve the situation, but he didn’t because he generally tends to fumble just about everything.
Then after all that, they decided to launch basically a decapitation strike on Ukraine in Feb 2022. By April 2022, the strike hadn’t worked, but the Ukrainians and Russians were in the process of another treaty, which as far as I remember, Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to not take. It was only then that the attrition war mess started.
My point is, western powers had many many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. Russia also had the choice of not invading, but every Russian leader made it clear that a Ukraine militarily integreated into the west is a national security catastrophe for them. That includes everyone from Gobachev (the one who dissolved the USSR on behalf of the west), Yeltsin (the one installed by the west), and Putin (the Russian liberal who initially wanted to join NATO until the west made it clear that they basically wanted to continue the cold war).
In essence, every russian leader since the late 1980s started out as pro-west, and yet the west simply does not want to end the cold war. So now you’re back to the same situation as before the dissolution of the USSR. The formation of 2 competing blocs that engage in proxy wars to contain each other’s power. And let’s be clear, Russia is not the only taking military action. The west’s military adventurism in west asia directly threatens the security of Russia and China, and India, and Europe. Part of the reason for the west’s fanatical levels of support for Israel is precisely because it is a convenient launching pad for de-stabilization actions taken in the heart of Eurasia.
It’s funny that you think Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine because a western-aligned Ukraine is apparently an “existential” threat to Russia. Ukraine is a much smaller country than Russia. Russia has some of the most powerful military capabilities in the world. If Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO. Russia would still have great military resources that they could use to defend Russia.
The reason some Ukrainians want to join NATO is because of the very real existential threat that Russia has posed to the state of Ukraine. But that existential threat just doesn’t matter, right Dmitri?