Finland, Sweden + NATO

[Sheilbh]

That's a pretty dick move by Turkey if true. Especially since - if handled a bit better - they could probably have parlayed their assent into Sweden providing less support to PKK.

EDIT: It appears the Turkish reservations apply to both Finland and Sweden. Seems like Erdogan is trying to butter both sides of his toast with respect to Russia here.

I think he probably is using his leverage to get concessions on the PKK (plus show off in Turkey). You're right it is a dick move but I think now is also the point of maximum leverage - if he raises it while Sweden and Finland are preparing to apply then it's something that is bilateral and they can probably talk about and fix. If he raises it once they've applied and everyone's super keen, then he can make it an issue for the entire alliance and possibly extract concessions from other countries as well.

Turkey's definitely having it both ways on the war - but Turkey and Israel are the countries so far that the Ukrainians and Russians have used as avenues for talks and contacts because both sides trust them and they have good relations with both. I think that's probably worth keeping open, especially if they keep sending Bayraktars - and just the other day there was a report that new ones keep getting to Ukraine so...

[Admiral Yi]

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

[Threviel]

Interestingly this was a great opportunity for the leftists. They have a new leader that's been hard on the government and has done some popular stuff, allying with the populists to get some things through parliament and so on. When it came to sending weapons to Ukraine they changed their internal rules to allow them to vote yes and so on.

In a lot of ways they've broken out of their historical mold and gone more sensible. Nato would be an opportunity for them to take the next step and would make them more feasible as a future government partner, like the populists on the right did. But I guess they just can't stop gobbling on that glorious Russian cock...

[Josquius]

It is mystifying why so many of the far left remain close to Russia... Despite the current regime having brutally killed off the USSR and being quite the opposite of it in many ways.
It's like they forgot why they saw the Soviets as their friends in the first place and think it's simply because they like that bit of the map.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

There are some who follow a twisted logic of America = bad. Russia =America says they're bad. Ergo Russia =good.
But they're fairly a minority, especially amongst actual politicians.

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

With most its more a naiive "NATO forced Russia into the war. Russia ain't that bad. Military alliances are always bad, they have military in the name. Just stop fighting and give peace a chance!"

[Eddie Teach]

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

Lolwut

[Josquius]

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

Lolwut

Aggressive militaristic state in the pocket of the oil and arms industries, anti democratic when people choose not to elect politicians that tow their line, and so on.

It's not entirely without merit.

[Eddie Teach]

Right, the West is defined by being anti-militarist. 

[Berkut]

It is mystifying why so many of the far left remain close to Russia... Despite the current regime having brutally killed off the USSR and being quite the opposite of it in many ways.
It's like they forgot why they saw the Soviets as their friends in the first place and think it's simply because they like that bit of the map.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

There are some who follow a twisted logic of America = bad. Russia =America says they're bad. Ergo Russia =good.
But they're fairly a minority, especially amongst actual politicians.

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

With most its more a naiive "NATO forced Russia into the war. Russia ain't that bad. Military alliances are always bad, they have military in the name. Just stop fighting and give peace a chance!"

I think there is still a huge element of "America is bad" out there. This is basically the consequence of America still be so economically, socially, and militarily dominant.

But the problem with that is that if America is to bad, well, what's the alternative? They have to have one, so the default becomes whoever opposes America. 

I've never understood the logic of that. In their world, we would all be better off if the Soviets had dominated the planet? The Chinese? Who exactly would be the better America (other then simply a better America, of course).

[Malthus]

It is mystifying why so many of the far left remain close to Russia... Despite the current regime having brutally killed off the USSR and being quite the opposite of it in many ways.
It's like they forgot why they saw the Soviets as their friends in the first place and think it's simply because they like that bit of the map.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

There are some who follow a twisted logic of America = bad. Russia =America says they're bad. Ergo Russia =good.
But they're fairly a minority, especially amongst actual politicians.

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

With most its more a naiive "NATO forced Russia into the war. Russia ain't that bad. Military alliances are always bad, they have military in the name. Just stop fighting and give peace a chance!"

I think there is still a huge element of "America is bad" out there. This is basically the consequence of America still be so economically, socially, and militarily dominant.

But the problem with that is that if America is to bad, well, what's the alternative? They have to have one, so the default becomes whoever opposes America.

I've never understood the logic of that. In their world, we would all be better off if the Soviets had dominated the planet? The Chinese? Who exactly would be the better America (other then simply a better America, of course).

What I have seen from sincere lefty peacenik types, is a belief that no one great power ought to dominate at all - that what should dominate, is something like the UN, only without the Security Council. A kind of global democracy ought to be sovereign, rather than some great powers. Also, equal representation for the poor in the third world, global redistribution.

Problem is, there is no roadmap as to how to get there in a world composed of great powers. Nor any way to convince those in the first world they ought to voluntarily average themselves with, say, the poor of Bangladesh.

[Josquius]

It is mystifying why so many of the far left remain close to Russia... Despite the current regime having brutally killed off the USSR and being quite the opposite of it in many ways.
It's like they forgot why they saw the Soviets as their friends in the first place and think it's simply because they like that bit of the map.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

There are some who follow a twisted logic of America = bad. Russia =America says they're bad. Ergo Russia =good.
But they're fairly a minority, especially amongst actual politicians.

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

With most its more a naiive "NATO forced Russia into the war. Russia ain't that bad. Military alliances are always bad, they have military in the name. Just stop fighting and give peace a chance!"

I think there is still a huge element of "America is bad" out there. This is basically the consequence of America still be so economically, socially, and militarily dominant.

But the problem with that is that if America is to bad, well, what's the alternative? They have to have one, so the default becomes whoever opposes America.

I've never understood the logic of that. In their world, we would all be better off if the Soviets had dominated the planet? The Chinese? Who exactly would be the better America (other then simply a better America, of course).

What I have seen from sincere lefty peacenik types, is a belief that no one great power ought to dominate at all - that what should dominate, is something like the UN, only without the Security Council. A kind of global democracy ought to be sovereign, rather than some great powers. Also, equal representation for the poor in the third world, global redistribution.

Problem is, there is no roadmap as to how to get there in a world composed of great powers. Nor any way to convince those in the first world they ought to voluntarily average themselves with, say, the poor of Bangladesh.

I think the argument there would be that most in the west would be better off too. Its the shadowy billionaires with their vast riches who would be the only ones to lose out.
On a surface level the maths add up, but of course it displays a sort of over simplification down to 2d cause and effect that you usually just see from conservatives.

But yes. As someone from the sensible left that would be the dream. Bring on the united federation of planets.

Possibly something that differentiates the Russia shaggers from the peaceniks. They tend to detest anything international (yet somehow claim to be left wing)

[Razgovory]

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

Lolwut

Aggressive militaristic state in the pocket of the oil and arms industries, anti democratic when people choose not to elect politicians that tow their line, and so on.

It's not entirely without merit.

Not to mention the evil, filthy cities they build and forcing their culture down everyone's throat, amirite?
Naive vs anti-American aren't two conflicting view points.  They are two great tastes that taste great together.  All conflict is caused by America (and it's colony Israeli of course) so the road to peace is through destroying American power. Militarily if necessary. Naturally American propaganda is going to make those countries that resist American power look like despots and fascists, but don't believe it

This is at least better than right wing Putin apologism which boils down to "Putin is a fascist and I want some of that!"

[Berkut]

It is mystifying why so many of the far left remain close to Russia... Despite the current regime having brutally killed off the USSR and being quite the opposite of it in many ways.
It's like they forgot why they saw the Soviets as their friends in the first place and think it's simply because they like that bit of the map.

Because that type of leftism is permeated by hate for the west and its freedoms

I tend to take a more charitable view of peaceniks: that their position is based on taking pacifism to it's illogical end point.

There are some who follow a twisted logic of America = bad. Russia =America says they're bad. Ergo Russia =good.
But they're fairly a minority, especially amongst actual politicians.

Even with these though it's not a hate for the west so much as a belief America is anti West.

With most its more a naiive "NATO forced Russia into the war. Russia ain't that bad. Military alliances are always bad, they have military in the name. Just stop fighting and give peace a chance!"

I think there is still a huge element of "America is bad" out there. This is basically the consequence of America still be so economically, socially, and militarily dominant.

But the problem with that is that if America is to bad, well, what's the alternative? They have to have one, so the default becomes whoever opposes America.

I've never understood the logic of that. In their world, we would all be better off if the Soviets had dominated the planet? The Chinese? Who exactly would be the better America (other then simply a better America, of course).

What I have seen from sincere lefty peacenik types, is a belief that no one great power ought to dominate at all - that what should dominate, is something like the UN, only without the Security Council. A kind of global democracy ought to be sovereign, rather than some great powers. Also, equal representation for the poor in the third world, global redistribution.

Problem is, there is no roadmap as to how to get there in a world composed of great powers. Nor any way to convince those in the first world they ought to voluntarily average themselves with, say, the poor of Bangladesh.

I am actually pretty sympathetic to that as an ideal. I really like America, but I don't actually think there is anything intrinsic about those words to describe a country that makes it somehow especially suitable to dominate the world. 

But that doesn't explain those who want that embracing the USSR. Or China. Or Russia. 

I would call what you are describing, in fact, the "better America". 

But the USSR is not a better America, or better Lefty Peacenik dream either. And I don't understand how one could contemplate the argument even that it is closer to that ideal even - it seems rather obviously further away.

[Malthus]

(I can't crop on my phone)

I could more easily understand those who hold out the USSR as an ideal, than present-day Russia.

Sure, the Soviets were horrible. However, they at least in theory espoused a utopian ideology. I never believed in that ideology, but I can understand someone who might. Like a sincere Catholic who acknowledges the abuses of the Church, but insists that this does not undermine that Christianity represents the best moral hope of humanity if only it reformed itself (another position I have never held, of course), a believer in Communism could hold that the Soviets, horrible though they were, represent the best possible governance of the world - if they could only get their shit together and put in place "true" Communism.

That I could understand. Disagree with, but at least it makes sense in its own terms.

What I can't understand, is those outside of Russia who somehow take Russia's side nowadays after the fall of the Soviets. They are horrible without espousing any utopian ideology. Their ideology, insofar as it exists, is raw Russian ethno-nationalism. Unless it is their very backwardness in social matters and attachment to a strong man that is attractive, I can't see any reason to take their side. 

[Josquius]

[".

But the USSR is not a better America, or better Lefty Peacenik dream either. And I don't understand how one could contemplate the argument even that it is closer to that ideal even - it seems rather obviously further away.

On the USSR the saner defences I've seen say that to varying extents (if crazy as far as stalin at his worst, more moderately the actually not as bad as people think post stalin years) most of the bad shit about the Soviet union was just there as it was a nation under siege by reactionary powers, it never got a fair chance and had to do insert bad thing here because they had no choice,it was that or threaten any chance of communism.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

And that's why people who peddle utopian ideas, and those who follow the peddlers, are so damn dangerous. They'll gladly kill millions calling it moral and they'll gladly excuse the most horrible things because it was for the best of ideals.

Well, f that. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.