Talk:Restless Souls/Summary: Difference between revisions

Russia is working on its comeback. Does it just want respect? It's a term that caused strong diplomatic turbulence between Germany and Ukraine January 2021. Everybody knows the Crimea will not come back to the Ukraine but drawing it as a fatalistic fact therefore seemingly excusable was reckless. While that conflict is a problem for itself Kay-Achim Schönbach should have said "Russia wants to be taken serious" instead of "respect". Russia wants also a piece of the cake, the geopolitical cake, money. NATO expanded eastward multiple times, therefore expanded their zone of influence. Why in the world would Russia just stand still and say "that's okay with us"? Sure, the smaller nations should be free to choose which alliance they want to join but that's not how the world works. That's the ugly truth. Only [[wp:Realpolitik|Realpolitik]] can solve this conflict. The unofficial rules in the club of <s>supercriminals</s> (*cough*) superpowers should be that you don't poach in the territory of another superpower and that undecided territory should remain bloc free.

It's a vicious circle, setting a bomb prone to self-ignition. '''The military-industrial-complex highly contributes to globally rising and distributed debts until they reach a critical limit and any spontaneous mega crisis like a new pandemic can blow up THE ENTIRE SYSTEM.'''

: * NATO was a self-defense alliance against a hypothetical new aggressive Germany and then against Soviet Union and communism. What started with a legit objective became more and more obsolete and is now in greater part a geopolitical tool of USA.

: Russia uses ambiguity to put pressure into their demands against Ukraine and NATO. Biden is now forced to use ambiguity himself. NATO stands weak and will not fight Russian soldiers on Ukrainian ground. By enhancing somewhat the defense of European NATO members Biden can claim the prevention paradox for himself. On one hand he can ease the pressure from Republicans and Democrats on the other hand he can seemingly increase NATO‘s legitimization.

: Still it would have been better to not increase defense in Ukraine and NATO partners. That way they cannot be blamed for provocations against Russia and an escalation spiral. It would allow USA to expose Russia as an absolute liar in case of an attack and have an even better point that NATO is still necessary nowadays.

: Chalmers Johnson, CIA consultant, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pwD4J35-i8&t=350s about "blowback"]: ''The unintended consequences of foreign CIA operations that were deliberately kept secret... so people come up with questions like, "Why do they hate us?"''

: Robert Gates, American intelligence analyst and United States secretary of defense complained that the Europeans were not spending enough for NATO's budget. At the same time he criticized NATO's expansion plans: "[https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2022/03/11/john-mearsheimer-on-why-the-west-is-principally-responsible-for-the-ukrainian-crisis trying to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO was truly overreaching.]"

'''If we reject Realpolitik as solution our attempts to protect our values can cause additional loss of human lifes.'''

2001 he said "the cold war is over" and wanted to reduce the mutual threatening. But his speech in Bundestag remained without consequences. After 9/11 he even allowed USA to use military bases in former Soviet republics for operations against Taliban. We missed the chance to stop a self-fulfilling prophecy. He became disappointed by Europe's half-hearted partnership additionally hampered by US hardliners who took themselves the right to operate all over the world. He ended up in letting the oligarchs work for him and put himself at the top of the deeply corrupt system, "managed democracy". Possibly understanding himself as smaller necessary evil. Why chancellor Schröder named him a "flawless democrat" he possibly will never let us know. Putin raised to represent but not fulfilled Russia's claim in power in which also lies some old Soviet pride and made him reject joining NATO as a mere ordinary member. Calling them losers wasn't the best diplomatic behavior either, not helpful.

:It can be assumed that the '''ideology-driven opposing views helped partly in keeping alive a feedback loop''' hindering to create better domestic policies. The well-intended but way naive left-ish narrative helped the extreme right in their doing which again causes the leftist to counteract to protect immigrants. The leftists shouldn't be blamed for having kickstarted the dynamic. There are historic pragmatic (realpolitisch) reasons for this development. The de-Nazification remained highly incomplete - therefore the need of a left-ish over-caring narrative. On one hand it was not possible to put large portions of Nazi perpetrator and accomplices into jail. There were simply too many of them. On the other hand post-war Europe lay in ashes. [[wp:Marshall_Plan|Germany was needed for the rebuild.]] And so USA connected this necessity with their own economic and political (anti-communistic) interests.

::: USA had many shady military and secret intelligence missions (CIA) in foreign nations. This includes installation of new government in rogue nations. Consequently these are made pro-USA. And as side effect USA often profits economically in an intesified way.

:::: '''Among critics you can often hear the "blood for oil" thesis or "No blood for oil" sloagan, saying in quintessence that USA is using its military to protect its advantage in buying, producing or mining the resources. However, nations with less potential power or by simply being smaller are always in disadvantage and are in danger of getting exploited by economic dynamics.''' (Pretty everyone tries or tried to exploit African nations.) On the other hand there is the military-industrial-complex and ideological factors that add their bits and pieces to foreign policy - may it be the readiness to use military and the "sense of mission" (own belief in being forced) to bring democracy to nations with a different cultural environment.

::: Sometimes these missions (for new governments / nation building) end up in unwillingly facilitating new radical forces - like the Taliban or the Islamic State. This makes its sometimes hard to believe that USA speaks the truth. '''The "collateral damage" - including the eavesdrop of global communication - is so massive that whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Julian Assange (WikiLeaks) can reveal that many tons of mistakes and wrongdoing that they were declared public enemies. USA created an empire not simply by - but yet partially by - questionable methods and accepted high amounts of killed civilians and violated human rights at [[wp:CIA_black_sites|CIA black sides]] like [[wp:Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp|Guantanamo]] which not even Nobel peace laureate Barack Obama was willing to close.''' If the inmates were not radicalized at the beginning they were after years of humiliation and torture. Their release poses a new threat to USA so the shutdown of Guantanamo is considered possible only in small steps. Putin sees Russia as superpower that cannot catch up. The problem with this fact is that there are four reasons: 1) Climate and geography give Russia a disadvantage. 2) Putin's own growing corruption. 3) The economic heritage. 4) The political heritage: For many US-Americans the Russians are evil communists which must be indeed blocked in their development, consequently this includes the sabotage of Russia's connection to Europe. -- Putin reasons that if USA doesn't "play fair" that he also doesn't need to play fair. But since Russia is in disadvantage Putin sees himself forced to use an even intensified level of ruthlessness. '''To overcome this position of weakness Putin decided to rule Russia in an autocratic style and take by force what he cannot get with legal methods.''' - Putin must be utterly frustrated that he could not lift Russia's status out of being an underdog. His entire second part of his lifespan was not enough to "restore" Russia. It seems that he snapped about that fact. - '''Besides the natural economic competition, military and political hardliners intensified a feedback loop in which USA and Russia still fight each each up to this day. - Anyway, the attack on Ukraine was the last red line Putin shouldn't have crossed. There is absolutely no credible justification for this attack.'''

::: The rat tail of consequences: Ukrainian government was not impressed by Russia's threats. They said they would never accept the occupation of Luhansk and Donetsk. In order to prevent big scale of Western weapon deliveries and the take back of ground Putin attacked the entire Ukraine underlaid by weird historic justifications and the assertion to prevent a genocide (meant for domestic propaganda). For a long lasting effect he needs to destroy the entire military. And to prevent its rebuild he needs to replace the Ukrainian government as well. -- '''Putin might have miscalculated how bloody the war would get and therefore needs further justification.''' The take over of Chernobyl gives him a better possibility to fake Ukrainian plans for [[wp:Dirty_bomb|dirty bombs]]. In theory Putin could use all forces at once (even though waves are standard), other heavy weapons (TOS-1, vacuum bombs) or nukes to accomplish his military goals but in practice the collateral damage in human lifes would make him the mass-murderer (from "mediocre" to top level). His propaganda machinery in not powerful enough to cover that much damage. Also this would very probable trigger even further sanctions.

:::: 2022.03.01 There were reports of vacuum bombs being used this day but that hasn't been confirmed. Right now a military convoy over 60 km long is on the way to Kiev. Apparently, Putin now want to carry out the "denazification" - the removal of Ukrainian administration by force. The urban warfare will probably cause tons of casualties.

::: Putin sees himself running out of milder options. His reaction to blockage of SWIFT with nuclear deterrence is as symbolic as it is concerning. SWIFT itself was described as a nuclear bomb. So his acting can be interpreted as face-saving counter.

:: The call for Islamic "volunteers" and mercenaries seems to be a hint that Putin cannot win the war with ground forces. He is left with using more bombs and kill Selenskyj "in time". '''Then again, will Putin run out of bombs someday?''' The West riddles why dumb bombs are dropped instead of guided bombs. Is it just wishful thinking? Allegedly Putin already asked Xi to restock his weapon and ammunition depots and allegedly Lawrow's airplane returned home midway after getting under US-induced pressure from China.

::: However, '''the Ukrainians are motivated to resist'''. The war could go on for a long time. Will the Ukraine become another Afghanistan for Russia? Too expensive to be continued by Russia? Some are [https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidhambling/2022/02/22/will-ukraine-be-russias-next-afghanistan/?sh=32c4fe0763f2 not so sure.] On the other hand there are signs indicating that Putin's advisors and generals gave him too optimistic predictions. '''As for peace negotiations the West is unlikely to accept new border lines and Russia cannot not simply leave without face-saving. It is the task of diplomacy to find a solution.''' This hasn't been made easier as more politicians now support Ukraine's joining to EU and NATO. Also NATO members are going increase defense spending and Putin (officially) wanted a demilitarization. A messed up situation. -- Putin seems to lose but cannot easily retreat. Just in case he unfortunately manages to stay in the game. Here's an idea: '''To make this a success disclosure of all conditions is not advisable.''' UN peacekeeping forces should be stationed for two, three years in Luhansk and Donetsk guarantee their "security" and prevent discrimination of local Russians. For the sake of a quick freedom let Putin have face-saving propaganda. He could sell it as "most importantly we removed the neonazis from the areas around Luhansk and Donetsk. Ukrainian Russians will not longer be terrorized and killed. Through the effort of our heroic troops Ukraine is demilitarized and will stay that way. [Mission accomplished.]" After that also face-saving grace period the areas return to Ukraine. Their should be economic aids to rebuild and modernize the Ukraine but especially these areas to further support the social healing and strengthen the peaceful coexistence. Secret condition: make a green deal with Russia - with technology transfers and future cooperation in research and in the economic sectors. (We also need Russia to stop climate change!) The Ukraine would be allowed to join EU and NATO but they also need to demilitarize. (Equipment gets handed over to nearest NATO partners.) '''The Ukraine will have the luxury to not need a military - Germany will fill that gap. The Ukraine can focus on economy, especially the hydrogen for EU. In return NATO partners GUARANTEE Ukraine's security so that no local troops are needed. They can rely on article 5.''' They would pay 0% for the defense budget during the first 20 years and 1% GDP in the next additional 20 years. (As real economic support but also as motivation to agree to the deal.) This can serve Putin's own narrative of "security" needs and name Ukraine a "buffer zone". Also, would Russia show anytime new aggression against Ukraine this decision is revoked and Ukraine get Blitz armed by NATO.