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?
Literally never even implied that. I’m sorry that your political education was limited to watching marvel movies with battles between good and evil.
Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO.
On the contrary, it would. Allowing western military infrastructure on an indefensible border would have been a catastrophic strategic error.
Also, kind of amazing to see liberal now hyping up Russian military capabilities when earlier in the war, they were calling it a “gas station with nukes”. Maybe the threat of these “advanced military capabilities” should have played a role in the political calculations of sending Ukrainians into an unwinnable war.
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.
There was no such strategic or existential threat in the aftermath of the cold war where the west basically lotted and puppeteered Russia. Even putin had naively tried to join nato believing that this would alleviate western attempts at putting military pressure on Russia back in 2008 or 7, don’t remember the exact year.
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?
Literally never even implied that. I’m sorry that your political education was limited to watching marvel movies with battles between good and evil.
On the contrary, it would. Allowing western military infrastructure on an indefensible border would have been a catastrophic strategic error.
Also, kind of amazing to see liberal now hyping up Russian military capabilities when earlier in the war, they were calling it a “gas station with nukes”. Maybe the threat of these “advanced military capabilities” should have played a role in the political calculations of sending Ukrainians into an unwinnable war.
There was no such strategic or existential threat in the aftermath of the cold war where the west basically lotted and puppeteered Russia. Even putin had naively tried to join nato believing that this would alleviate western attempts at putting military pressure on Russia back in 2008 or 7, don’t remember the exact year.