Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century. After Waterloo, there was stability for decades through the Congress of Europe. The rest of the century only saw one general war in Europe, that being the Crimean War (interesting how the same places re-emerge as geopolitical flashpoints). That was a major war, but nothing close to the general wars of the 20th century. There were plenty of smaller wars, but plenty of small and medium sized wars happened globally through the 20th century as well. Warfare within Europe in the 19th century was not as likely to involve deliberate slaughter of civilians as all great powers committed during the 20th century. Important violence occurred such as the US genocide across North America ("Manifest Destiny"), sometimes similarly genocidal European colonialism against Africa, Russian expansion across Siberia, British colonial wars against India and china, but these were considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system of the time. (And defenders of US hegemony would anyway seem to be inheritors of the British hegemony, so it would seem they would like the Opium Wars and British colonialization of Africa as necessary to build hegemony.) So I am confused what people mean by this "return to the 19th century" -- unless you mean to imply Europe will directly recolonize Africa (do people imagine that is what Putin is seeking?), the 19th century as a model seems a less violent one than the 20th and 21st centuries by far, if we are hoping for a generally more peaceful world going forward.
Because wars are the only thing that exist?
White people enslaving black people, women with no rights, prejudice against Jews basically standardized, rampant colonialism...
Wait, what the fuck is "considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system at the time?" I'm sure that the Congo would not appreciate a return to the 19th century way of doing things, and the fact that they were "outside the ordinary geopolitical system" doesn't help all the people killed, raped, and exploited.
You don't get to define the argument like that. "Oh what would be so bad, going back to the 1800s, fewer people died in wars than in the century with two world-spanning conflicts!" Well, then, is that the only measure of progress how many people die in wars? Is equity, access to health care, social justice, and the inception of Australian pop-rock sensation INXS worth nothing?
I think when people are referring to the 19th century they are specifically framing US hyperpower hegemony against a multi-polar system of many great powers without one predominant hegemon. I don't see how Russia or Putin, or speaking geopolitically about a return to a great power system versus hyperpower hegemony, has anything to do with slavery or genocide in Congo. A modern great power system implying a multi-polar world order of US and the BRICS nations and others, rather than US standing above other countries.
Nobody is advocating a return to phrenology, operas about Germanic mythology, or top hats.
Of course they were less violent. People were still fighting with horses and muskets, we hadn't yet invented the automatic rifle or, you know, flying death drones. Or intercontinental ballistic missiles. Or nuclear weapons. Or submarines which can take out an entire navy by themselves. Or hellfire rockets.
I mean, I could go on. War is more violent now because we have weapons capable of killing massively more amounts of people in a shorter amount of time.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
World War I happened for many reasons but among them were a rejection of a multi-polar system like a Congress of Europe and division of powers into two hardened, hostile alliances. That, and one power seeking to maintain a flagging hegemony (Britain) and trying to stop a power seeking its own hegemony (Germany). The current breakdown of the geopolitical order, and by current I mean in the Bush-Obama years, resembles that more than seeking real multipolarity would seem to. Basically "America needs to be world empire forever or the world will end" seems like like a scary, self-fulfilling sort of thing for American hawks or neocons to say -- a world-catastrophic nuclear war would be most likely in the event US kept pushing against rivals who have nukes in their neighborhoods in order to shore up its own declining hegemony.
Of course they were less violent. People were still fighting with horses and muskets, we hadn't yet invented the automatic rifle or, you know, flying death drones. Or intercontinental ballistic missiles. Or nuclear weapons. Or submarines which can take out an entire navy by themselves. Or hellfire rockets.
I mean, I could go on. War is more violent now because we have weapons capable of killing massively more amounts of people in a shorter amount of time.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
Yes, I'm absolutely certain that destabilizing the current hegemon and creating a massive power vacuum in a world where nuclear weapons exist is beneficial for humanity going forward. Nothing can go wrong with this plan.
The truth is, nobody knows what is beneficial for humanity going forward because humans are unpredictable. And destabilization is dangerous, especially in a world with nuclear weapons. If you're trying to claim that Russia has some sort of nobler purpose in doing this, let me just stop you right there while I laugh my ass off. The only reason Russia is doing this is because Russia and the U.S. can't fight each other head on and everyone knows it, so Russia is being a bully.
This entire situation reminds me more of the political situation right before World War II than anything else. We have a power hungry dictator gobbling up countries in Europe and everyone else is too afraid to take them on.
Are you saying that the US is playing aggressor on the world stage and not Russia?
Off the top of my head in the last 8 years, Russia has:
Invaded and annexed Georgia
Invaded and annexed parts of the Ukraine
Shot down civilian aircraft
Escalated the conflict in Syria
Influenced the outcome of U.S. elections
Yes, the United States invaded Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s and the world is still paying for those mistakes. But you are severely downplaying how aggressive Russia has been in the past ten years. Like others have said before me, nobody here is holding water for the United States; we all agree that our government has done some shitty things, even recently. But that doesn't mean Russia gets to do them too, you can hold all parties accountable for their bad decisions.
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
I don't know that Russia "escalated" anything in Syria. They intervened directly to save Assad when his regime may have collapsed. I have trouble seeing how the alternative would involve a more stable Middle East.
Imagine you stick a pin in a rattlesnake and it bites you. It is not good you were bitten. Nobody is saying the rattlesnake is good. Nobody at all is praising it for biting you. But if 99 people just go "Gahhhhh evil rattlesnake!!" and one person says, "Actually, that was not unusual, we should expect it would do that in those circumstances," that one person should not be shouted down or called an agent of the rattlesnake.
Wasn't the spiderweb of alliances and defense treaties the reason why WW1 got so big in the first place?
This is conventional wisdom. I think the better scholarship is that Germany wanted the war and took advantage of an opportunity.
Little of column a, little of column b.
Germany certainly took their alliances much more seriously than France and Russia. Russia was legitimately surprised Germany would honor an alliance with Austria over essentially a border skirmish, and France was certainly surprised Germany would war with them over having an alliance with Russia.
The biggest thing that was a problem was delayed communication and mobilization times and chain of suspicion, as well as a lack of understanding of what a modern general war would entail. If there had been a red phone type system at the time like between the US and Soviet union, or a organization like the UN, and their had been a will to avoid war, greater war could probably have been avoided.
Of course they were less violent. People were still fighting with horses and muskets, we hadn't yet invented the automatic rifle or, you know, flying death drones. Or intercontinental ballistic missiles. Or nuclear weapons. Or submarines which can take out an entire navy by themselves. Or hellfire rockets.
I mean, I could go on. War is more violent now because we have weapons capable of killing massively more amounts of people in a shorter amount of time.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
Major wars were less frequent due to mobilization and logistical difficulties. And it's extremely difficult to know what you consider "major". War is just as deadly if it's an ongoing border skirmish as it is if it's a calamity like WW1. Which is where 19th century politics lead us, and where we wind up much quicker thanks to modern technology.
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
And for extra fuckedupedness one of the major reasons was Tsar Nicholai and Kaiser Wilhelm. Two complete amateurs that fate had left in charge of the two biggest powers in Europe. Ironically they where very friendly(being Cousins thanks to the Royal Families intermarrying so much), but their idea of statesmanship was posturing and making outrageous demands that where never realistic. All with the idea that they could "negotiate" to a better deal the more aggressive their initial demands. After all Will and Nicki wouldn't really fight each other.
Will and Nicki supercharged agression
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
And for extra fuckedupedness one of the major reasons was Tsar Nicholai and Kaiser Wilhelm. Two complete amateurs that fate had left in charge of the two biggest powers in Europe. Ironically they where very friendly(being Cousins thanks to the Royal Families intermarrying so much), but their idea of statesmanship was posturing and making outrageous demands that where never realistic. All with the idea that they could "negotiate" to a better deal the more aggressive their initial demands. After all Will and Nicki wouldn't really fight each other.
Will and Nicki supercharged agression
It's also worth keeping in mind that WW1 was very much an existential conflict once it got underway - the plan of the times was not one in which you simply got a new set of rulers, and never was. German upper-class were dividing up what they'd do with the spoils of conquering France while the war was underway - if you were French, you were going to get to be a new underclass which they'd use to sure up big manufacturing profits!
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
Wait, I'm not letting this one by. Explain, please?
+1
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
Woah what?
Tsar Nicholas was by all accounts a pretty cool dude who really didn't even wanna be Tsar. Russia came to Serbia's defense in WW1 because of Austrian aggression against them (For very good reasons obviously) and sure you you can certainly blame the -system- that was set up at the time but you can't blame any individual country. You either played within the system at this point in time or you got shoved into someone's circle of influence and basically wound up having some other country tell you what to do and basically exploit your entire country.
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
And for extra fuckedupedness one of the major reasons was Tsar Nicholai and Kaiser Wilhelm. Two complete amateurs that fate had left in charge of the two biggest powers in Europe. Ironically they where very friendly(being Cousins thanks to the Royal Families intermarrying so much), but their idea of statesmanship was posturing and making outrageous demands that where never realistic. All with the idea that they could "negotiate" to a better deal the more aggressive their initial demands. After all Will and Nicki wouldn't really fight each other.
Will and Nicki supercharged agression
I am inclined to see Kaiser Wilhelm's rejection of a 19th century multipolar system and striving for hegemony as cause of World War I than multipolarism conceptually. If you go for hegemony, the people you step all over fight back when they are able to. Which brings us to the present moment and collapsing US hegemony. World War I happened because balance of power was conceptually rejected by a bad actor, much like the US Empire-builders or neocons.
I think a reason Putin and Henry Kissinger get along so well is this valuing of the geopolitical concept of balance of power as such.
Russia is making a whole lot of people's lives worse right now because they want politics to go back to the 19th century way of doing things. Why are you okay with that?
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century. After Waterloo, there was stability for decades through the Congress of Europe. The rest of the century only saw one general war in Europe, that being the Crimean War (interesting how the same places re-emerge as geopolitical flashpoints). That was a major war, but nothing close to the general wars of the 20th century. There were plenty of smaller wars, but plenty of small and medium sized wars happened globally through the 20th century as well. Warfare within Europe in the 19th century was not as likely to involve deliberate slaughter of civilians as all great powers committed during the 20th century. Important violence occurred such as the US genocide across North America ("Manifest Destiny"), sometimes similarly genocidal European colonialism against Africa, Russian expansion across Siberia, British colonial wars against India and china, but these were considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system of the time. (And defenders of US hegemony would anyway seem to be inheritors of the British hegemony, so it would seem they would like the Opium Wars and British colonialization of Africa as necessary to build hegemony.) So I am confused what people mean by this "return to the 19th century" -- unless you mean to imply Europe will directly recolonize Africa (do people imagine that is what Putin is seeking?), the 19th century as a model seems a less violent one than the 20th and 21st centuries by far, if we are hoping for a generally more peaceful world going forward.
Because wars are the only thing that exist?
White people enslaving black people, women with no rights, prejudice against Jews basically standardized, rampant colonialism...
Wait, what the fuck is "considered outside the ordinary geopolitical system at the time?" I'm sure that the Congo would not appreciate a return to the 19th century way of doing things, and the fact that they were "outside the ordinary geopolitical system" doesn't help all the people killed, raped, and exploited.
You don't get to define the argument like that. "Oh what would be so bad, going back to the 1800s, fewer people died in wars than in the century with two world-spanning conflicts!" Well, then, is that the only measure of progress how many people die in wars? Is equity, access to health care, social justice, and the inception of Australian pop-rock sensation INXS worth nothing?
I think when people are referring to the 19th century they are specifically framing US hyperpower hegemony against a multi-polar system of many great powers without one predominant hegemon. I don't see how Russia or Putin, or speaking geopolitically about a return to a great power system versus hyperpower hegemony, has anything to do with slavery or genocide in Congo. A modern great power system implying a multi-polar world order of US and the BRICS nations and others, rather than US standing above other countries.
Nobody is advocating a return to phrenology, operas about Germanic mythology, or top hats.
I WISH we'd have returned to phrenology, because then I'd be making good money piloting a zeppelin; I might even be able to afford a top hat.
My point is, you can't entirely divorce the geopolitical situation of the 19th century from the historical environs of the 19th century. Unchecked expansionism and colonialism combined with remnants of a frankly medieval system of treaties, intermarriage, and alliances in a world where democracy was still basically an untested experiment and monarchs still held the lion's share of the power... all of these contributed to that situation, and pretty much none of those secondary elements are 1:1 anymore.
You're actually arguing against your own argument, by the way.
I think when people are referring to the 19th century they are specifically framing US hyperpower hegemony against a multi-polar system of many great powers without one predominant hegemon. I don't see how Russia or Putin, or speaking geopolitically about a return to a great power system versus hyperpower hegemony, has anything to do with slavery or genocide in Congo.
People keep bringing up the 19th century, which regarding war in Europe was vastly less catastrophic than the 20th century.
So what are we talking about when we talk about the 1800s? Hyperpower hegemony or war in Europe? You should not tell me that I can't bring up social justice and pillaging of the Third World but then slip from geopolitics to how damaging war is. Aren't you from Cuba and living in France? There's a huge lesson in geopolitics, war, colonialism, and social justice right there?
I should also note that World War I was basically 100% a result of "The 19th century way of doing things." All of the convoluted treaties, relationships, and alliances held by leaders in the 19th century collapsed under their own weight, bringing the continent to possibly the most gruesome conflict in human history. WWI is what happens when the 19th century is allowed to its natural conclusion.
If Russia wants to go back to that, we're all fucked, because nobody survives a World War I collapse when both sides have nukes.
And for extra fuckedupedness one of the major reasons was Tsar Nicholai and Kaiser Wilhelm. Two complete amateurs that fate had left in charge of the two biggest powers in Europe. Ironically they where very friendly(being Cousins thanks to the Royal Families intermarrying so much), but their idea of statesmanship was posturing and making outrageous demands that where never realistic. All with the idea that they could "negotiate" to a better deal the more aggressive their initial demands. After all Will and Nicki wouldn't really fight each other.
I am inclined to see Kaiser Wilhelm's rejection of a 19th century multipolar system and striving for hegemony as cause of World War I than multipolarism conceptually. If you go for hegemony, the people you step all over fight back when they are able to. Which brings us to the present moment and collapsing US hegemony. World War I happened because balance of power was conceptually rejected by a bad actor, much like the US Empire-builders or neocons.
So seeing how this is a thread about Russia, how exactly do you see an expansionist Russia invading neighboring states (under the pretense of incorporating Russian speaking populations) as not being seeking a hegemony? Considering that in your fanciful multipolar model, you're leaving a large, autocratic, militarized state bordering a lot of smaller ones?
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
Wait, I'm not letting this one by. Explain, please?
Gotta go, Saturday night, back later. Will take me more than 5 minutes to compose. But it should be obvious enough even seeing the refugee crisis happening presently in Europe. And a lot else.
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
Wait, I'm not letting this one by. Explain, please?
Gotta go, Saturday night, back later. Will take me more than 5 minutes to compose. But it should be obvious enough even seeing the refugee crisis happening presently in Europe. And a lot else.
Also on the topic of libya: you do know that the decision to topple Qaddafi was one made by NATO and not just a random decision by Obama right? That it was done for both humanitarian (dude was hiring mercenaries to expedite the slaughter of his own people) and for security reasons (Libya had been a thorn in the west's ass for decades)?
It interests me that the UN has received so little attention in this discussion. It seems that a less hierarchically designed UN where countries actually follow the rules as set out in its Charter and other documents would go a long way towards ameliorating the risks of the kinds of conflict we're discussing. Is a functional UN entirely unrealistic and idealistic? It sorta seems that way, when the powerful countries just ignore its foundational rules when they feel so inclined (US invasion of Iraq and Russian annexation of Crimea come to mind), but is reforming the UN and significantly strengthening international law implausible? To me that seems a better way to ensure long term stability than trying to cling to hegemony for as long as possible.
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
Wait, I'm not letting this one by. Explain, please?
I think that's very debatable, but the results of the Libya war were pretty destabilizing. It helped lead to a Tuareg uprising in Mali, followed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb taking over half the country (edit - the northern half of Mali, not half of Libya), followed by a French/UN deployment in the Sahel and ongoing insurgency against them. Weapons flooded northern Africa generally. UAE and Egypt vs. Qatar started being drawn into a proxy war backing different Libyan governments, although they've been more chill over the last year or two. IS and other jihadist groups took over Libyan cities, foreign fighters joined them from across Africa, and last year the US/France others had to intervene again on behalf of various militias to oust them. Aside from the fighting between the two main northern factions, the south of the country has devolved into a patchwork of skirmishing ethnic militias. The instability in Libya has spilled across the border into Tunisia, leading them to close and guard the border after numerous attacks. And perhaps most significantly for the EU, the country became a main point of transit for massive amounts of refugees coming in boats across the Mediterranean.
I don't really know which event was more destabilizing, to be honest. I'd still lean toward Iraq, given Iraq's relationship to what has happened in Syria, but I could see why someone might argue otherwise.
On some level I don't really care about stability. If stability is the stability of brutal, oppressive regimes staying in power...then who gives a fuck?
Destabilizing North Korea is something I would absolutely support if it seemed likely it wasn't going to lead ultimately to a massive clusterfuck in Asia without a decisive resolution. That's the metric here. Establishing free democracies is worth a lot of collateral damage in doing so - it's kind of the basis of the entire western world being armed as it is, and having fought the wars it did in it's past.
On some level I don't really care about stability. If stability is the stability of brutal, oppressive regimes staying in power...then who gives a fuck?
Destabilizing North Korea is something I would absolutely support if it seemed likely it wasn't going to lead ultimately to a massive clusterfuck in Asia without a decisive resolution. That's the metric here. Establishing free democracies is worth a lot of collateral damage in doing so - it's kind of the basis of the entire western world being armed as it is, and having fought the wars it did in it's past.
Generally when I talk about greater global stability that goes hand in hand with better representation of citizenry and general quality of life.
Further, I'd hesitate to call NK a stable state, since it is so tightly tied to a singular dynasty of god emperors and when that line ends for whatever reason that country is going to fall apart even more then it already has.
Similarly, Putin having effectively made the country into a dictatorship means that there is no actual system for succession in the event of his death, and I fully expect the kremlin to be a really dangerous place to work in the aftermath of his passing.
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I feel like you don't understand why I posted that. "Citing" would imply I was stating I agreed with it and held it up as a source -- can you understand the difference between citing a source and asking a question about something that looks strange? I sense you did not understand what question I was asking. Also, is LaRouche so extremely well-known in the US that you expect everyone outside the US to know everything about his movement? He does have have a political party in France led by Jacques Cheminade who received around 0.25% of the vote in the two most recent presidential elections he contested, but they are very obscure and confusing.
The file I posted was large enough that it was removed. (Which caused that "warning." My apologies to those with data plans who downloaded the large image.)
I am asking what is the significance that "nutball conspiracy theorists" were saying 30 years ago Russia was grooming Donald Trump to be a US presidential candidate, something that everyone here now seems to believe is the reality? That seems a rather strangely prescient nutball conspiracy theory, given that half of the Democrats are now saying the exact same thing.
And what does it mean that the "unconfirmed" document that most people here believe to be true says that Russia saw, specifically, LaRouche as an asset (along with Jill Stein and Lt. Gen. Flynn) to wage information war against Hillary Clinton? If LaRouche is deployed as a propaganda agent against Clinton for Russia, as the source most people here accept to be true asserts, it calls into question how insignificant he would be in Russia's eyes. The document everyone believes that says Trump was compromised by Russia, that has dominated US media coverage over the last two days, also says Russia deployed Lyndon LaRouche to run propaganda against Clinton. What does that say about the document's credibility?
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
When did I say it cited LaRouche as a source? My English is not perfect but I feel I have been accused constantly here of making arguments I never made, and when I look over my text I am perplexed at the interpretations. The plain text I linked to described Russia seeing LaRouche as a propaganda asset.
I am saying, it just looks weird for this "fringe" character to show up in similar circumstances, albeit having "switched sides" if that is the right term? The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago. The latest manifestation of that theory now also claims LaRouche is a Russian asset. That just looks very....strange.
You posted a report by LaRouche and then continued to make the argument that the two are related in some way beyond the fact that the two reports exist.
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
Well you managed to imply it again in this very post
The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago.
When you talk about the origins of a theory, you're implying that further iterations on the theory either owe something to or were built on the original. The 2016 document wasn't based on LaRouche or the EIR. What else could you mean when you ask "are the two related?" The only way two reports could be related is if they're discussing the same thing or if they discuss one another. They aren't discussing the same thing, and as you keep pointing out you're smart enough to know that.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I am not even sure what I am being accused of and people continue bringing up entirely unrelated points or telling me to read Wikipedia articles instead of analyses by serious professors. I kind of feel like I'm arguing with people who choose not to read beyond Wikipedia.
Furthermore you keep stating that the fact that the EIR came to a vaguely similar conclusion as the 2016 report, but from very different directions and from very different methods, sources, and "facts", is somehow supposed to cast doubt on the 2016 report.
That just looks very....strange
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks
The two reports have nothing to do with one another. The only similarity in the conclusions that can be drawn from the documents is the generalization that "Trump is working with Russia", which in the context of both reports means completely different things.
However you keep stating your credentials and degrading the posters who disagree with you, while also trying to conflate these two very obviously unconnected reports, just makes me think that you're aware that they're unconnected. Furthermore you're already aware that the LaRouche report is unreliable and likely based on false information. Also you keep backing away from your assertions and reverting to "I'm just asking the question". Which would be fine if you had any intention of actually listening when people respond to your question.
Instead you keep trying to imply a connection between the two reports, one of which you know to be false, by saying that the LaRouche report is connected to the 2016 report.
It interests me that the UN has received so little attention in this discussion. It seems that a less hierarchically designed UN where countries actually follow the rules as set out in its Charter and other documents would go a long way towards ameliorating the risks of the kinds of conflict we're discussing. Is a functional UN entirely unrealistic and idealistic? It sorta seems that way, when the powerful countries just ignore its foundational rules when they feel so inclined (US invasion of Iraq and Russian annexation of Crimea come to mind), but is reforming the UN and significantly strengthening international law implausible? To me that seems a better way to ensure long term stability than trying to cling to hegemony for as long as possible.
Yes, it's implausible. The UN exists as it does exactly because it can't act the way you want it to. The larger powers would simply fight it or pull out of it instead of just vetoing it or ignoring it as they do now. There is no way for the UN to plausibly enforce any decrees without the consent of alot of the major powers. The UN prioritizes getting everyone together over exerting real power.
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I feel like you don't understand why I posted that. "Citing" would imply I was stating I agreed with it and held it up as a source -- can you understand the difference between citing a source and asking a question about something that looks strange? I sense you did not understand what question I was asking. Also, is LaRouche so extremely well-known in the US that you expect everyone outside the US to know everything about his movement? He does have have a political party in France led by Jacques Cheminade who received around 0.25% of the vote in the two most recent presidential elections he contested, but they are very obscure and confusing.
The file I posted was large enough that it was removed. (Which caused that "warning." My apologies to those with data plans who downloaded the large image.)
I am asking what is the significance that "nutball conspiracy theorists" were saying 30 years ago Russia was grooming Donald Trump to be a US presidential candidate, something that everyone here now seems to believe is the reality? That seems a rather strangely prescient nutball conspiracy theory, given that half of the Democrats are now saying the exact same thing.
And what does it mean that the "unconfirmed" document that most people here believe to be true says that Russia saw, specifically, LaRouche as an asset (along with Jill Stein and Lt. Gen. Flynn) to wage information war against Hillary Clinton? If LaRouche is deployed as a propaganda agent against Clinton for Russia, as the source most people here accept to be true asserts, it calls into question how insignificant he would be in Russia's eyes. The document everyone believes that says Trump was compromised by Russia, that has dominated US media coverage over the last two days, also says Russia deployed Lyndon LaRouche to run propaganda against Clinton. What does that say about the document's credibility?
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
However you keep stating your credentials and degrading the posters who disagree with you, while also trying to conflate these two very obviously unconnected reports, just makes me think that you're aware that they're unconnected. Furthermore you're already aware that the LaRouche report is unreliable and likely based on false information. Also you keep backing away from your assertions and reverting to "I'm just asking the question". Which would be fine if you had any intention of actually listening when people respond to your question.
Instead you keep trying to imply a connection between the two reports, one of which you know to be false, by saying that the LaRouche report is connected to the 2016 report.
Almost like a never-ending series of bad faith claims, isn't it?
* It is difficult to describe the magnitude of the present refugee crisis in Europe. Libya presently is the main place refugees are fleeing toward Europe. I could post 50 articles; just search Google news: refugees Libya
More than 5000 refugees died drowning in the Mediterranean in 2016. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece
The IOM said it believed many more deaths at sea may have gone unreported this year, particularly on journeys from North Africa to Spain, where data collection had been sporadic. Many smaller vessels were believed to have been lost without detection.
A spokesperson for the organiation in Rome, Flavio Di Giacomo, said the number of shipwrecks reflected the poor state of the boats used by the refugees and the current harsh weather conditions at sea. “We are seeing more migrants crossing this winter. This trend confirms the fact that conditions in Libya are becoming increasingly dangerous for migrants, who are often trying to flee the country in order to save their lives,” he said.
“Many people have told us that they didn’t want to come to Europe when they left their country of origin. For many of them the destination country was Libya. But what they found there was abuse and violence. As a consequence, they decided to try the sea crossing, putting their lives in the hands of unscrupulous smugglers ..."
There is a special circle of Hell for those responsible.
* By violating the UN resolution and going for regime change, the US/NATO deepened distrust with China and Russia, inflaming tensions afterwards and having some causative influence on subsequent actions by China and Russia, who increasingly saw the US as a rogue aggressive militarist state.
The LaRouche movement is a bunch of nutball conspiracy theorists and that you're citing them with regards to American politics indicates you do not have a clue about it.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I feel like you don't understand why I posted that. "Citing" would imply I was stating I agreed with it and held it up as a source -- can you understand the difference between citing a source and asking a question about something that looks strange? I sense you did not understand what question I was asking. Also, is LaRouche so extremely well-known in the US that you expect everyone outside the US to know everything about his movement? He does have have a political party in France led by Jacques Cheminade who received around 0.25% of the vote in the two most recent presidential elections he contested, but they are very obscure and confusing.
The file I posted was large enough that it was removed. (Which caused that "warning." My apologies to those with data plans who downloaded the large image.)
I am asking what is the significance that "nutball conspiracy theorists" were saying 30 years ago Russia was grooming Donald Trump to be a US presidential candidate, something that everyone here now seems to believe is the reality? That seems a rather strangely prescient nutball conspiracy theory, given that half of the Democrats are now saying the exact same thing.
And what does it mean that the "unconfirmed" document that most people here believe to be true says that Russia saw, specifically, LaRouche as an asset (along with Jill Stein and Lt. Gen. Flynn) to wage information war against Hillary Clinton? If LaRouche is deployed as a propaganda agent against Clinton for Russia, as the source most people here accept to be true asserts, it calls into question how insignificant he would be in Russia's eyes. The document everyone believes that says Trump was compromised by Russia, that has dominated US media coverage over the last two days, also says Russia deployed Lyndon LaRouche to run propaganda against Clinton. What does that say about the document's credibility?
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks.
You're trying to draw connections between two very different documents, which also leads me to believe that you haven't actually read the 35 page document. It doesn't cite LaRouche as a source for the information, but it does cite many other sources for the information. Your argument that two are somehow connected is based entirely on two conclusions being similar even though they're both based on entirely different data sets at entirely different times.
The connection is about as strong as the supposed /pol/ connection. The problem stems from us actually having an idea of where the information in the 35 page report comes from, and how it was handled and distributed. So far the steady barrage of questions regarding where the information came from has amounted to nothing more than gaslighting. That is, trying to marry disparate and false information to the report in order to make us question it, despite how easy it's been to see through it.
When did I say it cited LaRouche as a source? My English is not perfect but I feel I have been accused constantly here of making arguments I never made, and when I look over my text I am perplexed at the interpretations. The plain text I linked to described Russia seeing LaRouche as a propaganda asset.
I am saying, it just looks weird for this "fringe" character to show up in similar circumstances, albeit having "switched sides" if that is the right term? The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago. The latest manifestation of that theory now also claims LaRouche is a Russian asset. That just looks very....strange.
You posted a report by LaRouche and then continued to make the argument that the two are related in some way beyond the fact that the two reports exist.
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
Well you managed to imply it again in this very post
The "Trump is a Russian asset" theory originated in a LaRouche publication -- 30 years ago.
When you talk about the origins of a theory, you're implying that further iterations on the theory either owe something to or were built on the original. The 2016 document wasn't based on LaRouche or the EIR. What else could you mean when you ask "are the two related?" The only way two reports could be related is if they're discussing the same thing or if they discuss one another. They aren't discussing the same thing, and as you keep pointing out you're smart enough to know that.
I have studied US politics at graduate level.
I am not even sure what I am being accused of and people continue bringing up entirely unrelated points or telling me to read Wikipedia articles instead of analyses by serious professors. I kind of feel like I'm arguing with people who choose not to read beyond Wikipedia.
Furthermore you keep stating that the fact that the EIR came to a vaguely similar conclusion as the 2016 report, but from very different directions and from very different methods, sources, and "facts", is somehow supposed to cast doubt on the 2016 report.
That just looks very....strange
And are those two things (1987 LaRouche conspiracy theory that Trump was a Russian asset, 2016 document seen on CNN that says Trump is a Russian asset that in its fine print also says LaRouche is a Russian asset) in any way related?
It feels like a strange "in-joke" among spooks
The two reports have nothing to do with one another. The only similarity in the conclusions that can be drawn from the documents is the generalization that "Trump is working with Russia", which in the context of both reports means completely different things.
However you keep stating your credentials and degrading the posters who disagree with you, while also trying to conflate these two very obviously unconnected reports, just makes me think that you're aware that they're unconnected. Furthermore you're already aware that the LaRouche report is unreliable and likely based on false information. Also you keep backing away from your assertions and reverting to "I'm just asking the question". Which would be fine if you had any intention of actually listening when people respond to your question.
Instead you keep trying to imply a connection between the two reports, one of which you know to be false, by saying that the LaRouche report is connected to the 2016 report.
Other than casually mentioning to a user who had directly insulted me that I once studied US politics at graduate level, what "credentials" have I mentioned, or "kept stating"?
Here is context on the LaRouche report from Sarah Kendzior, probably the journalist who has written the most about the Trump/Russia connections. It would seem the two reports are connected, if you believe in the "Trump is a Russian asset" theory, in that the report was an early statement perceiving a phenomenon (Trump interactions with Russian government) that the later report describes. It would also be true to state that this theory originated in the LaRouche publication EIR in 1987; the LaRouchians were the first ones to make this argument or draw specific connections that other journalists now highlight as evidence Trump is a Russian asset. I don't necessarily agree with her conclusions, but she cares about research and she is arguing in good faith on the subject, which I cannot really say about posters here.
My point was: it seems weird to me that the theory originated with LaRouche, and that LaRouche himself is now an element within the theory. Like cosmic irony or something.
It interests me that the UN has received so little attention in this discussion. It seems that a less hierarchically designed UN where countries actually follow the rules as set out in its Charter and other documents would go a long way towards ameliorating the risks of the kinds of conflict we're discussing. Is a functional UN entirely unrealistic and idealistic? It sorta seems that way, when the powerful countries just ignore its foundational rules when they feel so inclined (US invasion of Iraq and Russian annexation of Crimea come to mind), but is reforming the UN and significantly strengthening international law implausible? To me that seems a better way to ensure long term stability than trying to cling to hegemony for as long as possible.
Yes, it's implausible. The UN exists as it does exactly because it can't act the way you want it to. The larger powers would simply fight it or pull out of it instead of just vetoing it or ignoring it as they do now. There is no way for the UN to plausibly enforce any decrees without the consent of alot of the major powers. The UN prioritizes getting everyone together over exerting real power.
Even as it exists, something like 45% of Americans think it's a conspiracy to keep us down.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
* By violating the UN resolution and going for regime change, the US/NATO deepened distrust with China and Russia, inflaming tensions afterwards and having some causative influence on subsequent actions by China and Russia, who increasingly saw the US as a rogue aggressive militarist state.
Ummm, what? The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was the basis for the No-Fly Zone NATO forces maintained, a resolution in which Russia and China abstained from voting. And UNSC Resolution 2016 recognized the improvements made in Libya after the ousting of Gaddafi, a resolution which Russia and China backed.
I wonder if anything happened between 1987 and now that might make that report pointless and/or not connected to current reports?
Grunge rock?
I was thinking things more related to geopolitics. Like the dissolution of the Soviet Union.. Though Putin was a LTC for the KGB at the time if there is any connection it's because the kompromat is old, not because Putin had a 3 decades long plan to ruin the US that was uncovered by the LaRouchites the instant it started.
So what are we talking about when we talk about the 1800s? Hyperpower hegemony or war in Europe? You should not tell me that I can't bring up social justice and pillaging of the Third World but then slip from geopolitics to how damaging war is. Aren't you from Cuba and living in France? There's a huge lesson in geopolitics, war, colonialism, and social justice right there?
Soon to be the Frankistan S.S.R., at this rate.
Time to break out all the old jokes about Germany and Vichy France and change the names and flags.
Commander Zoom on
+3
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
The whole LaRouche thing is... well, David Icke has gotten a few things sort of right. But that doesn't mean he got them sort of right for the right reasons. Anyways, Donald Trump was a famous and allegedly wealthy businessman who was considering running for President in 1988 and who went to Russia. These are all factual pieces of information, and I would be surprised if there wasn't at least one publication speculating about them. Regardless, it's important to separate the factual information from the speculation. The factual bits are potentially relevant; the speculation is coincidental.
Imagine you stick a pin in a rattlesnake and it bites you. It is not good you were bitten. Nobody is saying the rattlesnake is good. Nobody at all is praising it for biting you. But if 99 people just go "Gahhhhh evil rattlesnake!!" and one person says, "Actually, that was not unusual, we should expect it would do that in those circumstances," that one person should not be shouted down or called an agent of the rattlesnake.
The main problem with this is that rattlesnakes are generally not expected to participate in international relationships; rattlesnakes are generally not global powers that one attempts to reason with about proportionate responses or how to avoid future conflict.
* By violating the UN resolution and going for regime change, the US/NATO deepened distrust with China and Russia, inflaming tensions afterwards and having some causative influence on subsequent actions by China and Russia, who increasingly saw the US as a rogue aggressive militarist state.
Ummm, what? The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was the basis for the No-Fly Zone NATO forces maintained, a resolution in which Russia and China abstained from voting. And UNSC Resolution 2016 recognized the improvements made in Libya after the ousting of Gaddafi, a resolution which Russia and China backed.
China offered huge stockpiles of weapons to Colonel Moammar Gadhafi during the final months of his regime, according to papers that describe secret talks about shipments via Algeria and South Africa.
Documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show that state-controlled Chinese arms manufacturers were prepared to sell weapons and ammunition worth at least $200-million to the embattled Col. Gadhafi in late July, a violation of United Nations sanctions.
The documents suggest that Beijing and other governments may have played a double game in the Libyan war, claiming neutrality but covertly helping the dictator. The papers do not confirm whether any military assistance was delivered, but senior leaders of the new transitional government in Tripoli say the documents reinforce their suspicions about the recent actions of China, Algeria and South Africa.
Gaddafi gave up his weapons of mass destruction program and surrendered to the West in political and economic areas in 2003, but Libya still suffered military attacks from Western countries. Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei recently said publicly that it has proved to be a right decision for Iran not to abandon its nuclear program. Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has also said publicly that the Libya war shows it is absolutely necessary for Russia to build up its military forces and to enhance national security. The two leaders' remarks have shown the negative effects of the war in Libya. The war has sent a strong signal to anti-West state leaders: once they become the enemies of the West, they should either completely capitulate as soon as possible, or develop sophisticated weapons to ensure their own safety. As more and more anti-West leaders preferring to the latter choice, the world is facing larger risk of re-entering a "political jungle."
All parties involved should draw a lesson from the negative outcome of the Libya war. According to media reports, NATO is using the term "catastrophic success" to describe the victory against the Qaddafi regime. It would be much better to avoid the war than to achieve such "catastrophic success." Greater attention should have been paid to the political solution and other peaceful means that certain countries had suggested before and during the Libya crisis.
So Putin's willing to do everything but actually oppose it in law. So when you say it was unlawful, that's simply taking the words of the guy who had the chance to oppose it multiple times and chose not to, and then signed a resolution that said that the war led to improvements to the country.
So Putin's willing to do everything but actually oppose it in law. So when you say it was unlawful, that's simply taking the words of the guy who had the chance to oppose it multiple times and chose not to, and then signed a resolution that said that the war led to improvements to the country.
I think you are mistaking the meaning of the resolution or diplomatic language generally. The purpose of the resolution was to remove the mandate for military action. That mandate was justified by a purported humanitarian crisis caused by the civil war in Libya. At the moment it was passed, the civil war was over. Of course it would reignite soon, or turn to something vastly worse, but there was a brief moment of calm. It meant: "The situation has improved" so now NATO has no authority to continue military action. China and Russia of course signed off on repealing NATO authority to wage war there. It was not a resolution praising the war as you are implying. China and Russia both criticised the war explicitly as it was ongoing and in its aftermath, the record could not be more clear on that.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
At a certain point the argument "Should we really get mad at Russia for zealously pursuing its own interests?" isn't actually worth anything, because moral relativism works both ways. If I can't get mad at Russia for expanding its influence in opposition to ours, you can't get mad at the United States for expanding its own influence in opposition to Putin or for being frustrated when Putin succeeds at our expense.
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
Tsar Nicholas was by all accounts a pretty cool dude who really didn't even wanna be Tsar. Russia came to Serbia's defense in WW1 because of Austrian aggression against them (For very good reasons obviously) and sure you you can certainly blame the -system- that was set up at the time but you can't blame any individual country. You either played within the system at this point in time or you got shoved into someone's circle of influence and basically wound up having some other country tell you what to do and basically exploit your entire country.
The last Tsar did have a sympathetic past & family life... but he still took on the mantle, impoverished so many people in Russia that probably more people died due to malnourishment & serf life than died in Stalin's famine genocide & participated with great enthusiasm in multiple wars. The theme one tends to get from reading Nicholas's correspondence is that he was more detached than he was malicious, but the end result was still choking squalor across the country while he lived in a gilded palace.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
This is pure fucking nonsense.
Could it not be contrived to Send the Small Pox among those Disaffected Tribes of Indians? We must, on this occasion, Use Every Stratagem in our power to Reduce them.
I will try to inocculate the Indians by means of Blankets that may fall in their hands, taking care however not to get the disease myself.
You will Do well to try to Innoculate the Indians by means of Blanketts, as well as to try Every other method that can serve to Extirpate this Execreble Race.
The colonial powers had at their disposal torches, sabers, some early howitzers and smallpox infected clothing/blankets. They did what terrible things they could with the tools they had; there was no pact or code of ethics that was abandoned going into the 20th century. Maxim invented an easy to reproduce machine gun, Bell & Wright cracked the code on powered flight; as soon as bombers and bullet hoses became available, they replaced the torches & blankets as the means by which population centers could be attacked. Napoleon didn't think it was 'improper' to simply engage in wholesale massacre & looting (in fact that is precisely how he sustained his armies in the field) - he was just limited to what grapeshot & bayonets could accomplish.
Also, Europe only exists in a state of peace post-Waterloo if for some reason you discount all civil wars & flashpoints like Serbia.
Posts
I think when people are referring to the 19th century they are specifically framing US hyperpower hegemony against a multi-polar system of many great powers without one predominant hegemon. I don't see how Russia or Putin, or speaking geopolitically about a return to a great power system versus hyperpower hegemony, has anything to do with slavery or genocide in Congo. A modern great power system implying a multi-polar world order of US and the BRICS nations and others, rather than US standing above other countries.
Nobody is advocating a return to phrenology, operas about Germanic mythology, or top hats.
Yes, but tactically it was also considered less proper to murder entire cities of civilians as during the 20th century. And major wars themselves were just less frequent. The latter point is important to consider regarding conceptually what geopolitical order is most beneficial to humanity going forward.
World War I happened for many reasons but among them were a rejection of a multi-polar system like a Congress of Europe and division of powers into two hardened, hostile alliances. That, and one power seeking to maintain a flagging hegemony (Britain) and trying to stop a power seeking its own hegemony (Germany). The current breakdown of the geopolitical order, and by current I mean in the Bush-Obama years, resembles that more than seeking real multipolarity would seem to. Basically "America needs to be world empire forever or the world will end" seems like like a scary, self-fulfilling sort of thing for American hawks or neocons to say -- a world-catastrophic nuclear war would be most likely in the event US kept pushing against rivals who have nukes in their neighborhoods in order to shore up its own declining hegemony.
Yes, I'm absolutely certain that destabilizing the current hegemon and creating a massive power vacuum in a world where nuclear weapons exist is beneficial for humanity going forward. Nothing can go wrong with this plan.
The truth is, nobody knows what is beneficial for humanity going forward because humans are unpredictable. And destabilization is dangerous, especially in a world with nuclear weapons. If you're trying to claim that Russia has some sort of nobler purpose in doing this, let me just stop you right there while I laugh my ass off. The only reason Russia is doing this is because Russia and the U.S. can't fight each other head on and everyone knows it, so Russia is being a bully.
This entire situation reminds me more of the political situation right before World War II than anything else. We have a power hungry dictator gobbling up countries in Europe and everyone else is too afraid to take them on.
You're forgetting about the Libya war, which in geopolitical fallout was maybe even worse than the Iraq war.
I don't know that Russia "escalated" anything in Syria. They intervened directly to save Assad when his regime may have collapsed. I have trouble seeing how the alternative would involve a more stable Middle East.
Imagine you stick a pin in a rattlesnake and it bites you. It is not good you were bitten. Nobody is saying the rattlesnake is good. Nobody at all is praising it for biting you. But if 99 people just go "Gahhhhh evil rattlesnake!!" and one person says, "Actually, that was not unusual, we should expect it would do that in those circumstances," that one person should not be shouted down or called an agent of the rattlesnake.
I don).
Little of column a, little of column b.
Germany certainly took their alliances much more seriously than France and Russia. Russia was legitimately surprised Germany would honor an alliance with Austria over essentially a border skirmish, and France was certainly surprised Germany would war with them over having an alliance with Russia.
The biggest thing that was a problem was delayed communication and mobilization times and chain of suspicion, as well as a lack of understanding of what a modern general war would entail. If there had been a red phone type system at the time like between the US and Soviet union, or a organization like the UN, and their had been a will to avoid war, greater war could probably have been avoided.
Major wars were less frequent due to mobilization and logistical difficulties. And it's extremely difficult to know what you consider "major". War is just as deadly if it's an ongoing border skirmish as it is if it's a calamity like WW1. Which is where 19th century politics lead us, and where we wind up much quicker thanks to modern technology.
And for extra fuckedupedness one of the major reasons was Tsar Nicholai and Kaiser Wilhelm. Two complete amateurs that fate had left in charge of the two biggest powers in Europe. Ironically they where very friendly(being Cousins thanks to the Royal Families intermarrying so much), but their idea of statesmanship was posturing and making outrageous demands that where never realistic. All with the idea that they could "negotiate" to a better deal the more aggressive their initial demands. After all Will and Nicki wouldn't really fight each other.
Will and Nicki supercharged agression
It's also worth keeping in mind that WW1 was very much an existential conflict once it got underway - the plan of the times was not one in which you simply got a new set of rulers, and never was. German upper-class were dividing up what they'd do with the spoils of conquering France while the war was underway - if you were French, you were going to get to be a new underclass which they'd use to sure up big manufacturing profits!
Wait, I'm not letting this one by. Explain, please?
Tsar Nicholas was by all accounts a pretty cool dude who really didn't even wanna be Tsar. Russia came to Serbia's defense in WW1 because of Austrian aggression against them (For very good reasons obviously) and sure you you can certainly blame the -system- that was set up at the time but you can't blame any individual country. You either played within the system at this point in time or you got shoved into someone's circle of influence and basically wound up having some other country tell you what to do and basically exploit your entire country.
I am inclined to see Kaiser Wilhelm's rejection of a 19th century multipolar system and striving for hegemony as cause of World War I than multipolarism conceptually. If you go for hegemony, the people you step all over fight back when they are able to. Which brings us to the present moment and collapsing US hegemony. World War I happened because balance of power was conceptually rejected by a bad actor, much like the US Empire-builders or neocons.
I think a reason Putin and Henry Kissinger get along so well is this valuing of the geopolitical concept of balance of power as such.
I WISH we'd have returned to phrenology, because then I'd be making good money piloting a zeppelin; I might even be able to afford a top hat.
My point is, you can't entirely divorce the geopolitical situation of the 19th century from the historical environs of the 19th century. Unchecked expansionism and colonialism combined with remnants of a frankly medieval system of treaties, intermarriage, and alliances in a world where democracy was still basically an untested experiment and monarchs still held the lion's share of the power... all of these contributed to that situation, and pretty much none of those secondary elements are 1:1 anymore.
You're actually arguing against your own argument, by the way.
Vs.
So what are we talking about when we talk about the 1800s? Hyperpower hegemony or war in Europe? You should not tell me that I can't bring up social justice and pillaging of the Third World but then slip from geopolitics to how damaging war is. Aren't you from Cuba and living in France? There's a huge lesson in geopolitics, war, colonialism, and social justice right there?
So seeing how this is a thread about Russia, how exactly do you see an expansionist Russia invading neighboring states (under the pretense of incorporating Russian speaking populations) as not being seeking a hegemony? Considering that in your fanciful multipolar model, you're leaving a large, autocratic, militarized state bordering a lot of smaller ones?
Gotta go, Saturday night, back later. Will take me more than 5 minutes to compose. But it should be obvious enough even seeing the refugee crisis happening presently in Europe. And a lot else.
Also on the topic of libya: you do know that the decision to topple Qaddafi was one made by NATO and not just a random decision by Obama right? That it was done for both humanitarian (dude was hiring mercenaries to expedite the slaughter of his own people) and for security reasons (Libya had been a thorn in the west's ass for decades)?
I think that's very debatable, but the results of the Libya war were pretty destabilizing. It helped lead to a Tuareg uprising in Mali, followed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb taking over half the country (edit - the northern half of Mali, not half of Libya), followed by a French/UN deployment in the Sahel and ongoing insurgency against them. Weapons flooded northern Africa generally. UAE and Egypt vs. Qatar started being drawn into a proxy war backing different Libyan governments, although they've been more chill over the last year or two. IS and other jihadist groups took over Libyan cities, foreign fighters joined them from across Africa, and last year the US/France others had to intervene again on behalf of various militias to oust them. Aside from the fighting between the two main northern factions, the south of the country has devolved into a patchwork of skirmishing ethnic militias. The instability in Libya has spilled across the border into Tunisia, leading them to close and guard the border after numerous attacks. And perhaps most significantly for the EU, the country became a main point of transit for massive amounts of refugees coming in boats across the Mediterranean.
I don't really know which event was more destabilizing, to be honest. I'd still lean toward Iraq, given Iraq's relationship to what has happened in Syria, but I could see why someone might argue otherwise.
Destabilizing North Korea is something I would absolutely support if it seemed likely it wasn't going to lead ultimately to a massive clusterfuck in Asia without a decisive resolution. That's the metric here. Establishing free democracies is worth a lot of collateral damage in doing so - it's kind of the basis of the entire western world being armed as it is, and having fought the wars it did in it's past.
Generally when I talk about greater global stability that goes hand in hand with better representation of citizenry and general quality of life.
Further, I'd hesitate to call NK a stable state, since it is so tightly tied to a singular dynasty of god emperors and when that line ends for whatever reason that country is going to fall apart even more then it already has.
Similarly, Putin having effectively made the country into a dictatorship means that there is no actual system for succession in the event of his death, and I fully expect the kremlin to be a really dangerous place to work in the aftermath of his passing.
You posted a report by LaRouche and then continued to make the argument that the two are related in some way beyond the fact that the two reports exist.
Well you managed to imply it again in this very post When you talk about the origins of a theory, you're implying that further iterations on the theory either owe something to or were built on the original. The 2016 document wasn't based on LaRouche or the EIR. What else could you mean when you ask "are the two related?" The only way two reports could be related is if they're discussing the same thing or if they discuss one another. They aren't discussing the same thing, and as you keep pointing out you're smart enough to know that.
Furthermore you keep stating that the fact that the EIR came to a vaguely similar conclusion as the 2016 report, but from very different directions and from very different methods, sources, and "facts", is somehow supposed to cast doubt on the 2016 report.
The two reports have nothing to do with one another. The only similarity in the conclusions that can be drawn from the documents is the generalization that "Trump is working with Russia", which in the context of both reports means completely different things.
However you keep stating your credentials and degrading the posters who disagree with you, while also trying to conflate these two very obviously unconnected reports, just makes me think that you're aware that they're unconnected. Furthermore you're already aware that the LaRouche report is unreliable and likely based on false information. Also you keep backing away from your assertions and reverting to "I'm just asking the question". Which would be fine if you had any intention of actually listening when people respond to your question.
Instead you keep trying to imply a connection between the two reports, one of which you know to be false, by saying that the LaRouche report is connected to the 2016 report.
Yes, it's implausible. The UN exists as it does exactly because it can't act the way you want it to. The larger powers would simply fight it or pull out of it instead of just vetoing it or ignoring it as they do now. There is no way for the UN to plausibly enforce any decrees without the consent of alot of the major powers. The UN prioritizes getting everyone together over exerting real power.
On Libya, Kaputa really covered it but I would additionally add:
* Arms from Libya flooded not only the areas Kaputa mentioned but also Syria. See: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece
Both the Iraq war and Libya war contributed to the catastrophe in Syria; it is unclear how to "quantify" each influence.
* It is difficult to describe the magnitude of the present refugee crisis in Europe. Libya presently is the main place refugees are fleeing toward Europe. I could post 50 articles; just search Google news: refugees Libya
More than 5000 refugees died drowning in the Mediterranean in 2016.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1173125.ece
There is a special circle of Hell for those responsible.
* By violating the UN resolution and going for regime change, the US/NATO deepened distrust with China and Russia, inflaming tensions afterwards and having some causative influence on subsequent actions by China and Russia, who increasingly saw the US as a rogue aggressive militarist state.
Other than casually mentioning to a user who had directly insulted me that I once studied US politics at graduate level, what "credentials" have I mentioned, or "kept stating"?
Here is context on the LaRouche report from Sarah Kendzior, probably the journalist who has written the most about the Trump/Russia connections. It would seem the two reports are connected, if you believe in the "Trump is a Russian asset" theory, in that the report was an early statement perceiving a phenomenon (Trump interactions with Russian government) that the later report describes. It would also be true to state that this theory originated in the LaRouche publication EIR in 1987; the LaRouchians were the first ones to make this argument or draw specific connections that other journalists now highlight as evidence Trump is a Russian asset. I don't necessarily agree with her conclusions, but she cares about research and she is arguing in good faith on the subject, which I cannot really say about posters here.
Read the whole thread:
My point was: it seems weird to me that the theory originated with LaRouche, and that LaRouche himself is now an element within the theory. Like cosmic irony or something.
Even as it exists, something like 45% of Americans think it's a conspiracy to keep us down.
Ummm, what? The United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 was the basis for the No-Fly Zone NATO forces maintained, a resolution in which Russia and China abstained from voting. And UNSC Resolution 2016 recognized the improvements made in Libya after the ousting of Gaddafi, a resolution which Russia and China backed.
Grunge rock?
I was thinking things more related to geopolitics. Like the dissolution of the Soviet Union.. Though Putin was a LTC for the KGB at the time if there is any connection it's because the kompromat is old, not because Putin had a 3 decades long plan to ruin the US that was uncovered by the LaRouchites the instant it started.
Soon to be the Frankistan S.S.R., at this rate.
Time to break out all the old jokes about Germany and Vichy France and change the names and flags.
The main problem with this is that rattlesnakes are generally not expected to participate in international relationships; rattlesnakes are generally not global powers that one attempts to reason with about proportionate responses or how to avoid future conflict.
With rattlesnakes, one gets a shovel.
NATO war in Libya violates UN resolution, says Russia (19 April 2011)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-libya-idUSTRE73I26D20110419
Russia says arming Libya rebels violates UN vote (30 June 2011)
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-libya-russia-france-idUSTRE75T37220110630
China offered Gaddafi huge stockpile of arms:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/china-offered-gadhafi-huge-stockpiles-of-arms-libyan-memos/article1363316/
People's Daily : "Reflect on negative effects of Libya war":
http://en.people.cn/90780/7580138.html
In 2015 on US television programme 60 Minutes Putin described chaos following regime change wars in Iraq and Libya as justification for Russian military backing of the Syrian government:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/vladimir-putin-russian-president-60-minutes-charlie-rose/
I think you are mistaking the meaning of the resolution or diplomatic language generally. The purpose of the resolution was to remove the mandate for military action. That mandate was justified by a purported humanitarian crisis caused by the civil war in Libya. At the moment it was passed, the civil war was over. Of course it would reignite soon, or turn to something vastly worse, but there was a brief moment of calm. It meant: "The situation has improved" so now NATO has no authority to continue military action. China and Russia of course signed off on repealing NATO authority to wage war there. It was not a resolution praising the war as you are implying. China and Russia both criticised the war explicitly as it was ongoing and in its aftermath, the record could not be more clear on that.
China and Russia both abstained from the first resolution believing it would only lead to a no-fly zone over Benghazi, not a regime change war against Gaddafi. France initially overtly argued the effort was not to be a regime change war: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8354737/Libya-Russia-China-join-France-in-opposing-military-action-against-Gaddafi.html Whether France was just lying about that to get the resolution through without Russia/China veto, you tell me, or maybe I should tell you. (The answer is oui.)
If all things were equal this line of logic would make a lot of sense.
The difference though, is that the US has worked towards greater stability and individual freedom hroughout the world for the most part, whereas Russia (incapable of matching the technological sophistication of the US, it's economic power or diplomatic skills) is doing the exact opposite; fostering discord throughout the rest of the world in order to bring everyone else down to there level.
The last Tsar did have a sympathetic past & family life... but he still took on the mantle, impoverished so many people in Russia that probably more people died due to malnourishment & serf life than died in Stalin's famine genocide & participated with great enthusiasm in multiple wars. The theme one tends to get from reading Nicholas's correspondence is that he was more detached than he was malicious, but the end result was still choking squalor across the country while he lived in a gilded palace.
This is pure fucking nonsense.
The colonial powers had at their disposal torches, sabers, some early howitzers and smallpox infected clothing/blankets. They did what terrible things they could with the tools they had; there was no pact or code of ethics that was abandoned going into the 20th century. Maxim invented an easy to reproduce machine gun, Bell & Wright cracked the code on powered flight; as soon as bombers and bullet hoses became available, they replaced the torches & blankets as the means by which population centers could be attacked. Napoleon didn't think it was 'improper' to simply engage in wholesale massacre & looting (in fact that is precisely how he sustained his armies in the field) - he was just limited to what grapeshot & bayonets could accomplish.
Also, Europe only exists in a state of peace post-Waterloo if for some reason you discount all civil wars & flashpoints like Serbia.