US is going to be running on blood diesel

[RickLewis]

Yes, I think you've made a good evaluation of the situtation. Putin did wish to join NATO during the Clinton administration but was turned down flatly. America always needs an enemy to feed its enormous industrial military complex; it's typical of Empire and its desire for world domination, which it now sees slipping away. From my perspective, America is in complete chaos and is self-destructing. I don't think either party is worthy of being in government.

In case it is relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

I mean OK, this is from The Guardian - but on the other hand, it is a direct quotation and it seems pretty clear.

It implies that this tentative reach by Putin towards NATO membership might have foundered on the stupid matter of each side expecting the other side to make the first formal move.

I agree with phyllo though that these days, any application by Russia to join NATO would fail to meet at least two of NATO's minimum requirements. (Democracy and respecting sovereignty of neighbouring countries). But back then in 2000-2001 it might have met those requirements, or near enough.

[Gary Childress]

I recall seeing it said that at one point Putin asked NATO for permission for Russia to join NATO.

Russia has never applied for NATO membership.

It almost certainly doesn't meet the minimum requirements:

We have made clear that, at a minimum, candidates for membership must meet the following five requirements:

--New members must uphold democracy, including tolerating diversity.

--New members must be making progress toward a market economy.

--Their military forces must be under firm civilian control.

--They must be good neighbors and respect sovereignty outside their borders.

--They must be working toward compatibility with NATO forces.

https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/eur/fs_members.html

(One could ask if the USA still meets those requirements. )

We don't. We've been in more wars in the last 50 years than probably any other country in the world.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I think you've made a good evaluation of the situtation. Putin did wish to join NATO during the Clinton administration but was turned down flatly. America always needs an enemy to feed its enormous industrial military complex; it's typical of Empire and its desire for world domination, which it now sees slipping away. From my perspective, America is in complete chaos and is self-destructing. I don't think either party is worthy of being in government.

In case it is relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join Nato but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.

George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said.

The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

I mean OK, this is from The Guardian - but on the other hand, it is a direct quotation and it seems pretty clear.

It implies that this tentative reach by Putin towards NATO membership might have foundered on the stupid matter of each side expecting the other side to make the first formal move.

I agree with phyllo though that these days, any application by Russia to join NATO would fail to meet at least two of NATO's minimum requirements. (Democracy and respecting sovereignty of neighbouring countries). But back then in 2000-2001 it might have met those requirements, or near enough.

Putin is very proud and pompous, just like Trump. They could be twins if Trump sawed his shins off.

[Janoah]

Or are dealings between nations exempt from any moral or ethical constraints?

"12Who is the man who desires life,
and loves many days that he may see good?
13Keep your tongue from evil,
and your lips from speaking deceit.
14Depart from evil, and do good;
seek peace, and pursue it."
(Putin, ouch, I'm sorry, Psalms 34)

[Impenitent]

running on blood diesel has got to be easier than roller skating on the beach

then again...

-Imp

[popeye1945]

Yes, I think you've made a good evaluation of the situtation. Putin did wish to join NATO during the Clinton administration but was turned down flatly. America always needs an enemy to feed its enormous industrial military complex; it's typical of Empire and its desire for world domination, which it now sees slipping away. From my perspective, America is in complete chaos and is self-destructing. I don't think either party is fit to govern.

In case it is relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join NATO but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of Western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable, prosperous West that Russia was out of at the time,” he said. The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO; they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

You believe this? It reminds me of the Marshall Plan after the Second World War. All of Europe was devastated, most particularly Russia. Remember Russia took the brunt of the monster Nazi war machine's violence in winning the Second World War. America lost half a million souls in that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million and was a totally gutted country. The Marshall Plan benefited all of Europe except for Russia. The reason it was stated was the lack of cooperation with the United States, not allowing the United States total access to their intergovernmental spending, not opening their book to the United States of America, basically utter subjugation. Europe, as we know from history, was totally subjugated by the United States, becoming the only significant Empire to stand when the smoke cleared. Granted, winning the war was a collective enterprise, but Russia paid the greatest price for that victory, and even today America tries to claim the leading role through its homegrown false mythology. So, you will have to excuse me if I don't buy that the reason for Russia's rejection was the pettiness of Putin's ego. The history the American people are fed is a very creative historical fiction; it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the way I understand the American population's arrogance: its American exceptionalism, a formula that separated the population from their humanity. I believe this American exceptionalism is probably why you buy this most improbable explanation for Clinton rejecting Putin's request.

I mean OK, this is from The Guardian - but on the other hand, it is a direct quotation and it seems pretty clear.
It implies that this tentative reach by Putin towards NATO membership might have foundered on the stupid matter of each side expecting the other side to make the first formal move. I agree with phyllo though, that these days, any application by Russia to join NATO would fail to meet at least two of NATO's minimum requirements. (Democracy and respecting sovereignty of neighbouring countries). But back then in 2000-2001 it might have met those requirements, or near enough.

Please, you're expecting me to buy that America respects the sovereignty of other countries? You really are one of the American examples of an exceptionalist mindset if you buy that. The world is changing, and America and the West should recognize that the age of Empire is coming to a close; along with Western colonialism, their proverbial chickens have come home to roost. As far as democracy is concerned, do you really believe you live? I am assuming you are American, in a democracy? I see the American public as so steeped in homegrown propaganda that they are not in their right minds, and the world has been paying a heavy price for that mindset and attitude.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I think you've made a good evaluation of the situtation. Putin did wish to join NATO during the Clinton administration but was turned down flatly. America always needs an enemy to feed its enormous industrial military complex; it's typical of Empire and its desire for world domination, which it now sees slipping away. From my perspective, America is in complete chaos and is self-destructing. I don't think either party is fit to govern.

In case it is relevant:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... n-his-rule

Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join NATO but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line “with a lot of countries that don’t matter”, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.
George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led Nato between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of Western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable, prosperous West that Russia was out of at the time,” he said. The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. “Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO; they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”

You believe this? It reminds me of the Marshall Plan after the Second World War. All of Europe was devastated, most particularly Russia. Remember Russia took the brunt of the monster Nazi war machine's violence in winning the Second World War. America lost half a million souls in that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million and was a totally gutted country. The Marshall Plan benefited all of Europe except for Russia. The reason it was stated was the lack of cooperation with the United States, not allowing the United States total access to their intergovernmental spending, not opening their book to the United States of America, basically utter subjugation. Europe, as we know from history, was totally subjugated by the United States, becoming the only significant Empire to stand when the smoke cleared. Granted, winning the war was a collective enterprise, but Russia paid the greatest price for that victory, and even today America tries to claim the leading role through its homegrown false mythology. So, you will have to excuse me if I don't buy that the reason for Russia's rejection was the pettiness of Putin's ego. The history the American people are fed is a very creative historical fiction; it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This is the way I understand the American population's arrogance: its American exceptionalism, a formula that separated the population from their humanity. I believe this American exceptionalism is probably why you buy this most improbable explanation for Clinton rejecting Putin's request.

I mean OK, this is from The Guardian - but on the other hand, it is a direct quotation and it seems pretty clear.
It implies that this tentative reach by Putin towards NATO membership might have foundered on the stupid matter of each side expecting the other side to make the first formal move. I agree with phyllo though, that these days, any application by Russia to join NATO would fail to meet at least two of NATO's minimum requirements. (Democracy and respecting sovereignty of neighbouring countries). But back then in 2000-2001 it might have met those requirements, or near enough.

Please, you're expecting me to buy that America respects the sovereignty of other countries? You really are one of the American examples of an exceptionalist mindset if you buy that. The world is changing, and America and the West should recognize that the age of Empire is coming to a close; along with Western colonialism, their proverbial chickens have come home to roost. As far as democracy is concerned, do you really believe you live? I am assuming you are American, in a democracy? I see the American public as so steeped in homegrown propaganda that they are not in their right minds, and the world has been paying a heavy price for that mindset and attitude.

Rick runs Philosophy Now. Philosophy Now is based in the UK, not the US. My guess would be that he is English (or maybe British; not sure which is which)

[popeye1945]

THANKS GARY!

[RickLewis]

Yes, I am British.

I do believe that America is exceptional. I also believe that France, Britain, Russia, Germany, Ukraine and all other nations are all exceptional as well, each one in its own way. I additionally believe that individual humans of all nations tend share the same basic desires, hopes, weaknesses, delusions and capacity for reasoning. So having got all that out of the way...

I notice that several times in this conversation you have mentioned Clinton. I'm guessing that this is because he was a member of the Democrat party, and you wish to emphasise this? He was indeed, of course. However, within a few months of the conversation between Putin and George Robertson reported by The Guardian, George W. Bush of the Republican Party became President in January 2001. At that point, Putin was still running Russia (as he still is a quarter century later), the British Labour Party politician George Robinson was still head of NATO (as he continued to be until 2003) and George W. Bush was President of the USA. Bush on becoming President would definitely have been told about Putin's recently-expressed desire to join NATO. So if the failure was indeed a failure of both sides to climb off their respective high horses, then there are plenty to share the blame for that, including Democrat and Republican Presidents of the USA, the British Government, the NATO chiefs and of course dear old Vlad himself, whose career subsequently spiralled downwards from hopeful young moderniser to the point we can see today.

[Impenitent]

the American military industrial complex needs a target

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

the American military industrial complex needs a target

-Imp

More importantly, they need you to root for America in the war against Iran and keep rubber-stamping the approval of defense appropriations out of fear of being defeated by the "enemy".

[popeye1945]

Yes, I am British.

I do believe that America is exceptional. I also believe that France, Britain, Russia, Germany, Ukraine and all other nations are all exceptional as well, each one in its own way. I additionally believe that individual humans of all nations tend share the same basic desires, hopes, weaknesses, delusions and capacity for reasoning. So having got all that out of the way...

I notice that several times in this conversation you have mentioned Clinton. I'm guessing that this is because he was a member of the Democrat party, and you wish to emphasise this? He was indeed, of course. However, within a few months of the conversation between Putin and George Robertson reported by The Guardian, George W. Bush of the Republican Party became President in January 2001. At that point, Putin was still running Russia (as he still is a quarter century later), the British Labour Party politician George Robinson was still head of NATO (as he continued to be until 2003) and George W. Bush was President of the USA. Bush on becoming President would definitely have been told about Putin's recently-expressed desire to join NATO. So if the failure was indeed a failure of both sides to climb off their respective high horses, then there are plenty to share the blame for that, including Democrat and Republican Presidents of the USA, the British Government, the NATO chiefs and of course dear old Vlad himself, whose career subsequently spiralled downwards from hopeful young moderniser to the point we can see today.

It doesn't matter which party is in power in the States; you can change parties but not policies. That is not negotiable, but is determined by the elite. I think it's silly to blame the failure of the possible unity of Europe on Putin's petty ego. America, with its war economy, has to have an enemy; its very nature demands it.

[Gary Childress]

Yes, I am British.

I do believe that America is exceptional. I also believe that France, Britain, Russia, Germany, Ukraine and all other nations are all exceptional as well, each one in its own way. I additionally believe that individual humans of all nations tend share the same basic desires, hopes, weaknesses, delusions and capacity for reasoning. So having got all that out of the way...

I notice that several times in this conversation you have mentioned Clinton. I'm guessing that this is because he was a member of the Democrat party, and you wish to emphasise this? He was indeed, of course. However, within a few months of the conversation between Putin and George Robertson reported by The Guardian, George W. Bush of the Republican Party became President in January 2001. At that point, Putin was still running Russia (as he still is a quarter century later), the British Labour Party politician George Robinson was still head of NATO (as he continued to be until 2003) and George W. Bush was President of the USA. Bush on becoming President would definitely have been told about Putin's recently-expressed desire to join NATO. So if the failure was indeed a failure of both sides to climb off their respective high horses, then there are plenty to share the blame for that, including Democrat and Republican Presidents of the USA, the British Government, the NATO chiefs and of course dear old Vlad himself, whose career subsequently spiralled downwards from hopeful young moderniser to the point we can see today.

It doesn't matter which party is in power in the States; you can change parties but not policies. That is not negotiable, but is determined by the elite. I think it's silly to blame the failure of the possible unity of Europe on Putin's petty ego. America, with its war economy, has to have an enemy; its very nature demands it.

It seems to me to be a mistake to believe that Putin isn't part of the problem also and that simply defeating the US is going to fix everything. The world's problems are endemic, and there don't seem to be permanent fixes, only vigilance. And that vigilance should be dynamic, universal, and meet every new problem that arises.

[Janoah]

English (or maybe British

Britain, it sounds archaic, "several states for several peoples", this is a fair solution.
And England, those who have been to London say that they have not met either the Angles or the Saxons there.
Everyone there wants a free, free Philistine, so give them freedom at last, from all those Angles and Saxons.

[RickLewis]

Britain, it sounds archaic, "several states for several peoples", this is a fair solution.
And England, those who have been to London say that they have not met either the Angles or the Saxons there.
Everyone there wants a free, free Philistine, so give them freedom at last, from all those Angles and Saxons.

Those who have been to London (where I am sitting right now) mostly seem to like it. Of course, there's the occasional MAGA tourist stumbling along the street, holding his phone at arm's length to film himself ranting about how you can't even walk down the street in London with your phone out. But we're tolerant here and people just steer around them.