US is going to be running on blood diesel

[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.

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.

Hi Gary,
The world is changing, and the West is in panic mode; the end of Empire and Western colonialism is a frightening prospect for them, and they are fighting it tooth and nail, bloody tooth and nail, as Byron once said: " Nature red in tooth and claw." America is Empire, and its day is done. It never was what it pretended to be to its population. Maybe in the beginning, but even there it got off to a bad start with the genocide of the native population; not that that is a particular sin of America; the West indulged in that worldwide, but it's over. Africa raising sacres the shit out of the West; no matter how many of its leaders they kill, it cannot be stopped now, and Africa is the richest continent on the planet, kept in poverty by colonial powers, but it's over! If and when the West can come to terms with a new world order, then humanity can start building something finer than the old system of violence and exploitation. America has been a cruel master, but I don't think the new order will be vengeful; it's simply a matter of evolutionary development: it is this, or total extinction. The world is naturally interrelated and interdependent, and cooperation between nations is replacing fifteenth-century colonial rule. Empires have come and gone; it is the sunset of the American empire.

[Janoah]

MAGA

I think it would be better if Trump bought your island before it sank like the Titanic.
Trump didn't have time to buy France, and here's the result, free Philistine is already there.

[FlashDangerpants]

The amount of racist panic on what purports to be a philosophy forum is perplexing.

[Radagast]

If and when the West can come to terms with a new world order, then humanity can start building something finer than the old system of violence and exploitation.

Well at least you aren't purely negative and you have an idea of what you think this new world order should look like. I've always enjoyed reading about utopias. Care to share with us what exactly your new world order would look like? And how would it deal with "unremovable" leaders like Putin who launch military invasions of their neighbours? Let them fight it out and the weak go to the wall? Or some kind of international security architecture?

I can sound sarcastic sometimes - I've been told - but I am genuinely interested to know what you have in mind.

[popeye1945]

If and when the West can come to terms with a new world order, then humanity can start building something finer than the old system of violence and exploitation.

Well at least you aren't purely negative and you have an idea of what you think this new world order should look like. I've always enjoyed reading about utopias. Care to share with us what exactly your new world order would look like? And how would it deal with "unremovable" leaders like Putin who launch military invasions of their neighbours? Let them fight it out and the weak go to the wall? Or some kind of international security architecture?

I can sound sarcastic sometimes - I've been told - but I am genuinely interested to know what you have in mind.

The way I see it, this new world order is a necessity; it is either evolving into something other than fifteenth-century colonialism or humanity will perish. As much of the world realizes, the world is a network of interrelated and interdependent nations requiring cooperation between nations rather than the traditional colonial enterprise and violent empires. The British Empire started to be taken over by the Americans after World War I. Britain realized it could no longer get its own way in the world and needed the Americans. Empire has always been a bloodbath in the subjugation of weaker nations. The BRICS federation of nations holds out a promise of a more peaceful and coherent world; the old colonial system holds no hope for a better world, just more wars and chaos. Russia agreed to the unification of Germany on the condition that NATO would not move one inch closer to the borders of Russia. NATO immediately afterwards started moving eastward towards Russia, and with each nation it enfolded came the placement of American military with their nuclear weapons.

The reaction to Russia's concerns for the security of a sovereign Russia was met with, " What we do is none of your business. Ukraine was the last straw, and so, invasion by the evil demon Putin. Remember, Russia has been invaded numerous times in its history. Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country. So, yes, my hopes are with the new order of the BRICS federation of nations, which I now believe represents over half the population of the planet now or close to it and growing. Think about it, China is America's chosen enemy. Why? Because they are doing better with a middle-of-the-road system than the West can match. So I say to NATO, get off Russia's back porch and go home; that is the sane thing to do, but NATO, somewhere along the line, transformed into a war machine, at first the puppet of the American Empire but now operating out of its own aggressive nature.

[FlashDangerpants]

Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country.

It wasn't Russia that lost twenty-seven million souls it was the USSR, and about half of them were Ukrainian not Russian.

The Ukrainians have suffered plenty, especially given the Holdomor that Russia inflicted on them before Hitler even goth there. Any respect that Russia deserves for a right to self-determination is at least matched by Ukraine's right to the the same for which you show no regard whatsoever.

[Gary Childress]

Russia also invaded Poland and Finland during that war. They were no angels until Hitler tried to invade them, too.

[Janoah]

Russia also invaded Poland and Finland during that war. They were no angels until Hitler tried to invade them, too.

By the way, Poland, along with the Nazis, invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded Poland.
And before that, the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, taking the Sudetenland from it to the Nazis.

Stalin proposed a territorial exchange with Finland, offering twice the territory he had requested, given the threat of Nazi attack and Leningrad's proximity to the border. Finland refused, and then, indeed, joined the Nazis in their attack on the USSR, and after its defeat in the Soviet war against Finland.

Stalin took the original Russian lands from Poland in 1939, and Lvov was founded by the Russian king.
Lithuania received from Stalin its current capital, Vilnius, which Stalin took from Poland in 1939.
Why doesn't Lithuania give Vilnius back to Poland if it is unhappy with Stalin's agreements of 1939?
Why doesn't Ukraine return Western Ukraine, Transcarpathia, and Northern Bukovina, which Stalin gave it after taking it from Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia-Hungary?

[Gary Childress]

Russia also invaded Poland and Finland during that war. They were no angels until Hitler tried to invade them, too.

By the way, Poland, along with the Nazis, invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded Poland.
And before that, the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, taking the Sudetenland from it to the Nazis.

Stalin proposed a territorial exchange with Finland, offering twice the territory he had requested, given the threat of Nazi attack and Leningrad's proximity to the border. Finland refused, and then, indeed, joined the Nazis in their attack on the USSR, and after its defeat in the Soviet war against Finland.

Stalin took the original Russian lands from Poland in 1939, and Lvov was founded by the Russian king.
Lithuania received from Stalin its current capital, Vilnius, which Stalin took from Poland in 1939.
Why doesn't Lithuania give Vilnius back to Poland if it is unhappy with Stalin's agreements of 1939?
Why doesn't Ukraine return Western Ukraine, Transcarpathia, and Northern Bukovina, which Stalin gave it after taking it from Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia-Hungary?

As I stated above, Putin is no angel any more than the US or any other country is.

[Janoah]

As I stated above, Putin is no angel any more than the US or any other country is.

An angel, from a philosophical perspective, is immaterial, so the comparison is inaccurate.

And Gary, do you have any angels in your family, if it's not a secret?

[MikeNovack]

By the way, Poland, along with the Nazis, invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded Poland.
And before that, the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, taking the Sudetenland from it to the Nazis.

Stalin proposed a territorial exchange with Finland, offering twice the territory he had requested, given the threat of Nazi attack and Leningrad's proximity to the border. Finland refused, and then, indeed, joined the Nazis in their attack on the USSR, and after its defeat in the Soviet war against Finland.

Stalin took the original Russian lands from Poland in 1939, and Lvov was founded by the Russian king.
Lithuania received from Stalin its current capital, Vilnius, which Stalin took from Poland in 1939.
Why doesn't Lithuania give Vilnius back to Poland if it is unhappy with Stalin's agreements of 1939?
Why doesn't Ukraine return Western Ukraine, Transcarpathia, and Northern Bukovina, which Stalin gave it after taking it from Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia-Hungary?

This is PAINFUL to read. Janoah, please at least take a look at the history of eastern Europe before talking about it.

There was no "Russian king" when Lvov was founded. No Russia even. Ivan IV could be said to be the first king of Russia (Tzar). When Lvov was founded, the Rus still centered around Kiev and Novgorad, and the whole area tributary to the Tatars.

Vilnus as a settlement goes back to pre-history, but Lithuania was organized as country early, and so was once a "world power", and Vilnus as its capital by the 14th Century. Remember, in the 14th Century Germany, Italy, even France not countries as we know these countries (thus there was a "France" around Paris but much of what we now consider France (Burgundy, Brittany, Anjou, etc. etc.) pretty independent.

"Taken from Hungary" is awkward at best. Like Lithuania, Hungary was organized as a country from the start (when the Khazars/Magyars invaded Europe) and so was once a major power, occupying/controlling large areas beyond the main Magyar area (roughly what Hungary's borders are now). Yeah, I know this history, I'm half Magyar.
"

[Janoah]

By the way, Poland, along with the Nazis, invaded Czechoslovakia before Germany invaded Poland.
And before that, the West surrendered Czechoslovakia to the Nazis, taking the Sudetenland from it to the Nazis.

Stalin proposed a territorial exchange with Finland, offering twice the territory he had requested, given the threat of Nazi attack and Leningrad's proximity to the border. Finland refused, and then, indeed, joined the Nazis in their attack on the USSR, and after its defeat in the Soviet war against Finland.

Stalin took the original Russian lands from Poland in 1939, and Lvov was founded by the Russian king.
Lithuania received from Stalin its current capital, Vilnius, which Stalin took from Poland in 1939.
Why doesn't Lithuania give Vilnius back to Poland if it is unhappy with Stalin's agreements of 1939?
Why doesn't Ukraine return Western Ukraine, Transcarpathia, and Northern Bukovina, which Stalin gave it after taking it from Poland, Romania, and Czechoslovakia-Hungary?

There was no "Russian king" when Lvov was founded.

"Lviv was named after Leo I of Galicia, the eldest son of Daniel, King of Ruthenia."
"The King of Ruthenia (Latin: Rex Rutheniae) or King of the Ruthenians (Latin: Rex Ruthenorum), also known as the King of Rus' or King of Russia"

Stalin took Vilnius from Poland and handed it over to Lithuania, this is a historical fact.

Stalin took Transcarpathia and gave it to Ukraine—that's a historical fact.
Transcarpathia had previously belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary, part of Austria-Hungary, and then to Czechoslovakia.

I no longer have the desire to explain obvious things to you.

[MikeNovack]

"The King of Ruthenia (Latin: Rex Rutheniae) or King of the Ruthenians (Latin: Rex Ruthenorum), also known as the King of Rus' or King of Russia"[/i]

I no longer have the desire to explain obvious things to you.

THERE WAS NO RUSSIA YET. There was the term Rus', where the Slavs lived, like the term Germany or Italy at that time (no countries 14th Century). There were polities organized around Kiev (now Ukraine) and around Novgorad (now Belarus) and around Moscow. These had "princees", well Novgorad was often a semi-democratic oligarchy. No overall king/tzar of Russia until Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible)

[Janoah]

It is clear that they were not talking about Muscovite Rus, but about the Rus that existed before Muscovite Rus.
What is important here is that the king of Rus, not Poland, founded Lvov.
Russia is still called Rus, and has always been called so, because Russia developed from ancient Rus.
And Stalin returned Lvov to Rus'.

[popeye1945]

Russia was the fulcrum on which the Second World War was won and paid a horrific price in defeating that monster Nazi war machine. America lost half a million souls to that war; Russia lost twenty-seven million souls and a totally gutted country.

It wasn't Russia that lost twenty-seven million souls it was the USSR, and about half of them were Ukrainian, not Russian.

The USSR was Russia under Stalin, and the Ukrainians were fighting Russia side by side with the monster Nazi war machine. That Russia lost twenty-seven million souls in defeating the Nazi war machine is simply recorded history; look it up!

The Ukrainians have suffered plenty, especially given the Holdomor that Russia inflicted on them before Hitler even goth there. Any respect that Russia deserves for a right to self-determination is at least matched by Ukraine's right to the the same for which you show no regard whatsoever.

You're quite right about the horrors of the Stalin days of rule; he was as much a monster as Hitler, but it took one monster to defeat another monster, and it was Stalin's Russia that crushed the Nazi war machine and chased them all the way back to Berlin to deliver the final death blow of total defeat. I suspect you have no idea about the historical process that led to the invasion of Ukraine, or even the significance of the geometry at play. Ok, think of Ukraine as similar to Canada in relation to the United States: if Russia wished to establish a military presence in Canada, right on the US border, what would America do about this obvious threat to the United States? Do you think the States would tolerate that? Right, no, they would not, and neither has Russia; it invaded Ukraine just as the States would have invaded Canada. After the war, the Allies occupied Germany for many years, but eventually NATO wanted to free Germany and asked the Russians to go along with it. They did on the condition that NATO agreed to not move any forces closer to Russia. After this agreement, NATO began moving ever closer to Russia, one country at a time, and installing American military bases in these new members of NATO. When Russia expressed its concerns over its security, it was told that what NATO does is none of its business. This process continued until NATO wanted to occupy Ukraine right on Russia's border; thus, the evil Russians invaded Ukraine, and the war with the West began. This is how Russia, through the Western propaganda machine, became the bad guy in this scenario.