The Nazis did horrible things in Europe before and during WW2.
The USA invaded or otherwise waged war against multiple countries in the middle east and that is not okay. Other NATO countries supported these actions. Note: My original comment was about wheat shipments from Ukraine, which is why I had focused on Ukraine and Eastern Europe in general.
Not holding elections in Ukraine, while legal by their constitution and not uncommon in countries at all out war, does not look great.
Things I hope we can agree on:
Ethnic and cultural groups (like the Kurds, the Crimean Tartars, the Palestinians, the Crimean Russians, and many others) have a right to self-determination. This is often expressed as a right to statehood, although that is complicated by the benefits of self-sufficiency that larger states can provide. This tension is not always easy to dissolve. This is related to the next point:
The post WW2 international order has outlined a legal framework to prevent conflict on that scale from happening again, which is the legal framework I am referencing in a number of posts above and comments below. While flawed (e.g., broad veto powers of some countries in the security council), this framework is a great achievement and should carry weight, as it’s the best we currently have to determining when countries can use military force and when not.
Since World War 2 any Central and Eastern European country basically had a choice of associating with either Russia or the USA, both for economic and security considerations (choice is often very euphemistic here: Many of the Eastern European Countries were conquered during WW2 and then had a long struggle towards being allowed that choice). Many of these countries chose the USA over Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union. The reasons are certainly complex, but among them may be a preference of the populace of these countries for a capitalist liberal democracy over an autocratic oligarchy with or without the face of communism (pre/post 1990). Associating with one of these blocks has led these countries to support or at the very least not principally oppose military actions of at the very least questionable legality and morality, especially in the Middle East.
Sweden held no colonies since 1878, and even those were rather few. Some Baltic territory was colonized by Imperial Germany. Of any European countries, these may have among the least “blood on their hands” regarding the exploitation of the Global South.
The Swedish airspace is not sacrosanct. You had asked about Russian aggression in recent history. I brought up these maneuvers over Swedish airspace (as well as attacking undersea cables and most likely the Nordstream 2 pipeline), the invasion of Georgia in 2008 (as well as in the early 1990s), the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and of the rest of Ukraine in 2022. This goes in addition to invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan to fight local uprisings or independence movements (going back to that tricky question of self-determination), as well as supplying arms and expertise to various proxies during the Cold War. If “recent history” goes back as far as WW2, this also includes the invasion of Poland, as well as the occupation of most of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WW2.
Sweden used to be neutral, non-aligned, and non-aggressive until some time between the late 1990s and early 2000s. It only joined NATO in 2024, a process that really gathered steam only after and because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
The major public protests against the regime in Iran before the war were largely carried by the populace and were beaten down with disproportionate violence. This does not change the fact that opening war against Iran by the US was an act of aggression that was almost certainly not in accordance with international law.
Things we don’t agree on (written from my perspective):
NATO has no combat troops in Ukraine by its own and by third party accounts. Small numbers of non-combat troops have been deployed, e.g., for training Ukrainian soldiers, though the vast majority of these is not in Ukraine.
While the political far-right is sadly growing in many European countries, most European countries are still functioning democracies. In fact, European countries are consistently ranked among the most democratic countries in the world. The memory of the terrible crimes and victims of Nazi Germany in WW2 is preserved. Only fringe Neo-Nazi movements glorify the perpetrators.
Georgia did not start the Russo-Georgian war of 2008. You point to attacks on Russian “peace keepers”. I can equally point to articles saying South-Ossetian separatists, using weapons supplied by Russia, started the escalation by attacking Georgian villages. One can then also ask why there should even be Russian “peace keepers” on Georgian territory. That’s a euphemistic way of saying Georgia fought against occupying forces, a view I’m sure you’ll agree on when it’s about the 2021 US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example.
The 2014 Ukrainian revolution was not a coup led by foreign powers. At least between 2014 and 2022, Ukrainian democracy was working fairly well. It was definitely more free, fair, and just, than Russian elections, to name but one example.
Ethnic and cultural groups (like the Kurds, the Crimean Tartars, the Palestinians, the Crimean Russians, and many others) have a right to self-determination. This is often expressed as a right to statehood
I am unconvinced that statehood should be driven by ethnic nationalism (at least, in the absence of dire situations). Why should it?
This is simply a propagandistic cudgel used by NATO to justify things like attacking Syria, or Demanding that Russia return Crimea to Ukrainian occupation, or calling for the resubjugation of Hong Kong by the European powers. You never hear calls for France to relinquish control over, say, Bretagne and Corsica.
The post WW2 international order has outlined a legal framework to prevent conflict on that scale from happening again
It hasn’t. Your empire hasn’t even been at peace since then for any sort of prolonged period of time. You are always engaged in an invasion somewhere, be it in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Why are you even trying to imply as if NATO has ever tried to prevent itself from attacking somebody, or as if it has a history of honouring agreements.
this framework is a great achievement and should carry weight, as it’s the best we currently have to determining when countries can use military force and when not
We do not need a legal document to determine that colonialism is one of the most vile things that your empire has been engaging in. Hell, you agree that nazi Germany is bad, and all it did differently is do in Europe, against white people, what NATO (and its predecessor polities) have been doing to the rest of the world.
choice is often very euphemistic here: Many of the Eastern European Countries were conquered during WW2 and then had a long struggle towards being allowed that choice
I hope you reflect in the future on how you assert that the enemies of your empire “conquer” other countries, but have a “choice” when the oligarchs just decide to join the most vile gang in the world (to plunder Africa and Asia first and foremost).
I am also going to note that you value the ability of the ruling class to make choices such as deciding to rob the rest of the world over the living standards of the working class achieved without atrocities.
Many of these countries chose the USA over Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union
Many countries - such as Poland, France, and the British Empire - also chose nazi Germany over allying with the USSR. Why should the choices of their ruling classes be a priori held as good?
The reasons are certainly complex, but among them may be a preference of the populace of these countries for a capitalist liberal democracy over an autocratic oligarchy with or without the face of communism (pre/post 1990)
“Capitalist liberal democracy” is “autocratic oligarchy”. Not sure why you are trying to claim these are two distinct things. Do you think that, for example, Russia is not liberal, i.e. that it isn’t a pro-capitalist state with liberal representative democratic practices like the pointless presidential elections?
Sweden held no colonies since 1878
Sweden is currently in a gang of states that collectively own (and/or are settler-)colonies of all types - classic old-type colonies, genocidal settler-colonies, neocolonies.
Of any European countries, these may have among the least “blood on their hands” regarding the exploitation of the Global South
Yeah, nah. You are engaging in whitewashing a state that has participated in bombing civilian shelters to plunder Iraq (among other things).
The Swedish airspace is not sacrosanct
I agree. So, if, for example, Russia breaches it to defend Syria from your empire, Russia is in the right.
I brought up these maneuvers over Swedish airspace
So, let’s get this straight, - NATO (which Sweden has always been a de facto member of) - attacks Syria, followed by Russia aiding Syria against NATO. And you claim that this is an act of Russian aggression?
as well as attacking undersea cables
Not even your leadership thinks that Russia was involved.
and most likely the Nordstream 2 pipeline
This is an incredibly bizarre accusation for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Germany is currently trying to sentence a suspect that is Ukrainian.
What you are asserting here is that Russia destroyed its own pipeline that it was using to finance itself because ???, meanwhile both the US and Denmark were threatening to destroy Nordstream 2 shortly prior, and their ships were in the vicinity also shortly before the event in question.
the invasion of Georgia in 2008
So, Georgia attacks Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, as well as South Ossetians, then Russia responds, but it is somehow Russian aggression?
Also, you are quite literally now going back on your “self-determination” thing, as you claim that South Ossetians should not have a right for self-determination, and should have instead been slaughtered by Georgian troops.
Also, you still haven’t given me an answer - how should Russia have handled the situation?
as well as in the early 1990s
You mean the case where Russia allegedly helped Abkhazia against the attack by Georgian troops? “Aggression”, again.
the invasion of Crimea in 2014 and of the rest of Ukraine in 2022
After NATO did a coup in Ukraine as yet another (self-admitted) act of aggression against Russia. So, again, not an act of Russian aggression.
Also, you still haven’t answered my question - what should Russia have done in response to NATO’s actions here?
This goes in addition to invading Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan to fight local uprisings or independence movements
Firstly, these “independence movements” were NATO-backed nazis and the mujahideen (weird how consistently you support such, but do not support independence movements against your empire, isn’t it? If you were consistent, you would have sided with LNR, DNR, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc., and not with Ukraine and Georgia). It’s not at all a secret at this point that the USSR’s actions were at least somewhat correct (I do think that they should have acted sooner in Afghanistan).
Secondly, you very obviously are not informed about the relevant history of Afghanistan. The USSR was literally acting at the request of the liberation movement that got into power a few years prior, after NATO invaded it. You again have it completely backwards.
Thirdly, this is the USSR, and not Russia. But, I guess, you are going to keep mixing them up, aren’t you?
as well as supplying arms and expertise to various proxies during the Cold War
Their “proxies” were literally liberation/independence movements. They literally fought against colonial subjugation by your empire.
You keep talking about self-determination as if it is something that you support, but, as we can see, you actually just support NATO’s proxies, and abhor the actual independence movements. You are, whether you like to admit it or not, on the side of colonialism.
If “recent history” goes back as far as WW2, this also includes the invasion of Poland
Please tell me, what Polish cities did the USSR invade?
Also, I am going to note that you are seemingly fine with Poland invading Czechoslovakia together with Germany, with Poland invading Belarus and Ukraine, with Poland setting up a concentration camp in Belarus, and would have preferred that Germany took Polish-occupied Ukraine and Belarus.
as well as the occupation of most of Eastern Europe for the 45 years following WW2
Notably, you are fine with NATO’s occupation of a lot of Eastern Europe today, as well as with NATO’s colonial subjugation of the vast majority of the world.
Sweden used to be neutral, non-aligned, and non-aggressive
Nope.
Apologies for a lazy Wikipedia-based retort, but none of the European powers were neutral in the relevant period of time.
Why are you even so obsessed with trying to claim that a state that was a major beneficiary of colonialism all this time was somehow neutral?
It only joined NATO in 2024, a process that really gathered steam only after and because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
It has always been a de facto member, and NATO was the aggressor in the conflict with Russia, admittedly deliberately pushing for war with Russia.
The major public protests against the regime in Iran before the war were largely carried by the populace and were beaten down with disproportionate violence.
Ah, so you do believe this silly claim even after it has been confirmed that that was a NATO operation, that they were supplied equipment by NATO (by the way, Iran was seemingly able to precisely target your troops because they breached internet blockages using your Starlink), and that the violence was not disproportionate (and was not at the scale that your empire seems to have made you believe).
It’s a bit amusing how you just believe every word uttered by the people who sold you on the WMDs in Iraq.
NATO has no combat troops in Ukraine
Not since your troops - such as the reddit brigades - got beaten there, then.
Small numbers of non-combat troops have been deployed, e.g., for training Ukrainian soldiers
So, we agree, then, that Ukraine is yet another NATO proxy and cannot be claimed to not be affiliated with NATO?
Things we agree on:
Things I hope we can agree on:
Things we don’t agree on (written from my perspective):
I am unconvinced that statehood should be driven by ethnic nationalism (at least, in the absence of dire situations). Why should it?
This is simply a propagandistic cudgel used by NATO to justify things like attacking Syria, or Demanding that Russia return Crimea to Ukrainian occupation, or calling for the resubjugation of Hong Kong by the European powers. You never hear calls for France to relinquish control over, say, Bretagne and Corsica.
It hasn’t. Your empire hasn’t even been at peace since then for any sort of prolonged period of time. You are always engaged in an invasion somewhere, be it in Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
Why are you even trying to imply as if NATO has ever tried to prevent itself from attacking somebody, or as if it has a history of honouring agreements.
We do not need a legal document to determine that colonialism is one of the most vile things that your empire has been engaging in. Hell, you agree that nazi Germany is bad, and all it did differently is do in Europe, against white people, what NATO (and its predecessor polities) have been doing to the rest of the world.
I hope you reflect in the future on how you assert that the enemies of your empire “conquer” other countries, but have a “choice” when the oligarchs just decide to join the most vile gang in the world (to plunder Africa and Asia first and foremost).
I am also going to note that you value the ability of the ruling class to make choices such as deciding to rob the rest of the world over the living standards of the working class achieved without atrocities.
Many countries - such as Poland, France, and the British Empire - also chose nazi Germany over allying with the USSR. Why should the choices of their ruling classes be a priori held as good?
“Capitalist liberal democracy” is “autocratic oligarchy”. Not sure why you are trying to claim these are two distinct things. Do you think that, for example, Russia is not liberal, i.e. that it isn’t a pro-capitalist state with liberal representative democratic practices like the pointless presidential elections?
Sweden is currently in a gang of states that collectively own (and/or are settler-)colonies of all types - classic old-type colonies, genocidal settler-colonies, neocolonies.
Yeah, nah. You are engaging in whitewashing a state that has participated in bombing civilian shelters to plunder Iraq (among other things).
I agree. So, if, for example, Russia breaches it to defend Syria from your empire, Russia is in the right.
So, let’s get this straight, - NATO (which Sweden has always been a de facto member of) - attacks Syria, followed by Russia aiding Syria against NATO. And you claim that this is an act of Russian aggression?
Not even your leadership thinks that Russia was involved.
This is an incredibly bizarre accusation for a bunch of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that Germany is currently trying to sentence a suspect that is Ukrainian.
What you are asserting here is that Russia destroyed its own pipeline that it was using to finance itself because ???, meanwhile both the US and Denmark were threatening to destroy Nordstream 2 shortly prior, and their ships were in the vicinity also shortly before the event in question.
So, Georgia attacks Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, as well as South Ossetians, then Russia responds, but it is somehow Russian aggression?
Also, you are quite literally now going back on your “self-determination” thing, as you claim that South Ossetians should not have a right for self-determination, and should have instead been slaughtered by Georgian troops.
Also, you still haven’t given me an answer - how should Russia have handled the situation?
You mean the case where Russia allegedly helped Abkhazia against the attack by Georgian troops? “Aggression”, again.
After NATO did a coup in Ukraine as yet another (self-admitted) act of aggression against Russia. So, again, not an act of Russian aggression.
Also, you still haven’t answered my question - what should Russia have done in response to NATO’s actions here?
Firstly, these “independence movements” were NATO-backed nazis and the mujahideen (weird how consistently you support such, but do not support independence movements against your empire, isn’t it? If you were consistent, you would have sided with LNR, DNR, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, etc., and not with Ukraine and Georgia). It’s not at all a secret at this point that the USSR’s actions were at least somewhat correct (I do think that they should have acted sooner in Afghanistan).
Secondly, you very obviously are not informed about the relevant history of Afghanistan. The USSR was literally acting at the request of the liberation movement that got into power a few years prior, after NATO invaded it. You again have it completely backwards.
Thirdly, this is the USSR, and not Russia. But, I guess, you are going to keep mixing them up, aren’t you?
Their “proxies” were literally liberation/independence movements. They literally fought against colonial subjugation by your empire.
You keep talking about self-determination as if it is something that you support, but, as we can see, you actually just support NATO’s proxies, and abhor the actual independence movements. You are, whether you like to admit it or not, on the side of colonialism.
Please tell me, what Polish cities did the USSR invade?
Also, I am going to note that you are seemingly fine with Poland invading Czechoslovakia together with Germany, with Poland invading Belarus and Ukraine, with Poland setting up a concentration camp in Belarus, and would have preferred that Germany took Polish-occupied Ukraine and Belarus.
Notably, you are fine with NATO’s occupation of a lot of Eastern Europe today, as well as with NATO’s colonial subjugation of the vast majority of the world.
Nope.
Apologies for a lazy Wikipedia-based retort, but none of the European powers were neutral in the relevant period of time.
Why are you even so obsessed with trying to claim that a state that was a major beneficiary of colonialism all this time was somehow neutral?
It has always been a de facto member, and NATO was the aggressor in the conflict with Russia, admittedly deliberately pushing for war with Russia.
Ah, so you do believe this silly claim even after it has been confirmed that that was a NATO operation, that they were supplied equipment by NATO (by the way, Iran was seemingly able to precisely target your troops because they breached internet blockages using your Starlink), and that the violence was not disproportionate (and was not at the scale that your empire seems to have made you believe).
It’s a bit amusing how you just believe every word uttered by the people who sold you on the WMDs in Iraq.
Not since your troops - such as the reddit brigades - got beaten there, then.
So, we agree, then, that Ukraine is yet another NATO proxy and cannot be claimed to not be affiliated with NATO?
1/2