The State of Affairs in Russia

[Berkut]

That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.

Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?

I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.

Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.

[crazy canuck]

That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.

Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?

I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.

Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.

For sure it was Berkut, there have been a number of descriptions of that linked in this thread already - including Sheilbh's latest article.  This was the Bush presidency we are talking about here...  It was a US initiative.  The reason it did not happen is France, and iirc the UK objected.

[Berkut]

That's all well and true, but given that "progressive" has a specific political meaning - especially in the US - and given how much discourse goes on about "idiot progressives being impractical" and so on I think calling neocon policy "progressive" when it fails (and isn't pushed by progressives) is a bit unfortunate.

Do you think the desire to engage with the Ukraine was really "neocon"?

I've never really thought of it that way...I wonder if it isn't the other way around - its neocon because it failed.

Expansion of NATO eastwards was hardly a Republican political objective after all - that very much fell under the foreign policy consensus / broad agreement between both parties.

For sure it was Berkut, there have been a number of descriptions of that linked in this thread already - including Sheilbh's latest article.  This was the Bush presidency we are talking about here...  It was a US initiative.  The reason it did not happen is France, and iirc the UK objected.

That's not what I meant - I just mean that I don't think it was a neocon thing - had Clinton been President, or Obama, at that time, nobody would have thought it was crazy that a Dem would be pushing for inclusion of Ukraine into the western sphere. It was the US position, but I don't think it was really a neocon position, if that makes any sense.

Nor am I saying that there was some kind of great consensus that it would be a good idea to get Ukraine into NATO over the objections of the Russians. Just that those positions were not really political within the US. More just arguments about whether or not it would be a good idea.

I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.

[crazy canuck]

People at the time certainly saw it as part of the Neo Con agenda.

At the recently completed NATO summit in Bucharest, the Bush Administration took another step in its seven-year effort to transform the transatlantic alliance into an organization with a more global mission supportive of Washington's broader foreign policy goals. The Administration was able to win approval for an increase in NATO forces in Afghanistan, for its plan to deploy a missile defense system in Central Europe ostensibly aimed at a future Iranian nuclear threat, and for further enlarging NATO membership with the admission of Albania and Croatia and with promises of future membership for Georgia and Ukraine. In Bucharest Bush described his vision for the alliance in terms that should worry everyone familiar with the neoconservative agenda. "NATO," he said, "is no longer a static alliance focused on defending Europe from a Soviet tank invasion. It is now an expeditionary alliance that is sending its forces across the world to help secure a future of freedom and peace for millions."

In fact, the Administration's mission to transform NATO promises to do great damage to international peace and cooperation. If the true purpose of the old NATO was to "keep the Americans in, the Soviets out and the Germans down," as the saying went, the Bush Administration's goal for the alliance is to provide multilateral cover and support for its unilateral crusade while encircling Russia and sidelining the United Nations (a programmatic extension of the Clinton Administration's use of NATO to sideline the UN during the 1999 Kosovo war). This is a prescription for an even colder peace, if not an outright new cold war, with Russia; continued contentious relations with America's oldest allies in Europe, who do not share Washington's global mission; and an even weaker UN at a time when it is needed more urgently than ever.

The main vehicle for transforming NATO into an alliance with a global mission controlled by Washington has been expansion. The Administration pushed for a large NATO expansion in 2001 that incorporated the Baltic states as well as the Central and Eastern European countries not included in the first round of enlargement. It did so in part to dilute (old) European influence within the alliance, since the new members, especially the Baltic and Balkan states, like Poland before them, tend to be more subservient to Washington on military matters.

Expansion has forced the alliance into a looser military and command structure, allowing Washington to pick and choose its allies in any crisis while retaining the appearance of overall NATO support. This strategy did not help win outright support for the invasion of Iraq, but US courtship of Central and Eastern European countries did buy it some semblance of an international coalition and has facilitated its goal of leaning on NATO to support its war in Afghanistan.

The enlargement of NATO has done great damage to the cause of effective international cooperation, including on many of the issues that most affect US security. The main damage has been the increasing alienation of Russia, which has vigorously opposed NATO's push eastward. Russians of all political persuasions have, justifiably, seen NATO expansion as an unnecessary provocation aimed at weakening Moscow's influence with its neighbors. Moscow has countered this and other Washington moves by suspending the Conventional Forces in Europe agreement, by stepping up the modernization of its nuclear forces and by tightening its grip on the oil and gas supplies of Eurasia.

Washington's championing of NATO membership for Georgia, a former Soviet republic that is openly hostile to Moscow, and of Ukraine, a country that is deeply entwined with Russia economically, demographically and culturally, threatens to further damage relations with Russia (it's also bound to create internal tensions in Ukraine, where a majority of the population opposes NATO membership). This comes at a time when the United States needs Russian cooperation for a wide variety of foreign policy goals, from controlling loose nukes to helping to curb Iran's nuclear program to containing Islamic extremism. Only the objections of Germany, France and a few other European countries prevented NATO from offering Georgia and Ukraine a Membership Action Plan.

The other casualty of the Bush Administration's NATO policy has been UN reform. In many respects Administration neoconservatives see a globalized NATO as an alternative to the UN. The Administration has used NATO to push aside the UN even when the latter body, if given the proper resources, would have had a better chance of succeeding in places like Afghanistan. Indeed, many neoconservative and neoliberal hawks, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, see Bush's globalized NATO as the forerunner of a concert of democracies that will replace the UN. In that respect, Bush's globalized NATO is just one more neocon delusion that must be challenged and set aside by an incoming Democratic administration.

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/neocon-nato-delusions/

[Zoupa]

I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.

lolwut 

You have a peculiar recollection.

[Syt]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/maritime-warning-on-russian-navy-drills-is-first-for-foreign-military-in-20-years-1.4788228?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Maritime warning on Russian navy drills is first for foreign military in 20 years

Fishing group discovers that Irish trawlers will be in area to north of military exercises

Russia's naval drills planned for next week are the first exercises by a foreign military in at least 20 years that have required an Irish maritime warning.

While other navies and air forces regularly transit through Ireland's exclusive economic one (EEZ), live fire drills are unheard of in recent years, aside from those carried out by the Irish Naval Service.

The Department of Transport told The Irish Times it has issued 39 marine notices relating to military exercises in the last two decades, all of which related to exercises carried out by the Irish Defence Forces. The one exception is the Russian drills planned for next month.

A Russian flotilla, believed to contain five ships, including a large missile cruiser, continues to make its way down the west coast of Norway in the direction of Ireland.

Naval sources said they believe these ships are likely due to take part in the drills some 240km off Ireland's southwest for five days from next Thursday.

The department issued a marine notice on Wednesday to all seafarers with the location of the exercises, warning that they "will include the use of naval artillery and launching of rockets".

"Given the nature of the planned exercises and the presence of naval forces, vessels and crew are advised of serious safety risks in the operational area," the department said.

Seafarers were advised to "navigate their vessel to ensure safety at all times", it added.

Taoiseach Micheál Martin has expressed concern for the safety of west Cork fishermen who plan to peacefully protest Russian military exercises by continuing to fish in the area.

Mr Martin said his priority was the welfare of the fishermen who are engaging in the protest and he warned them that they should exercise caution.

Safety

"People have to be first and foremost conscious of safety, and in our view that is not the safest thing to be doing, fishing close to where military drilling is taking place," he said.

"We will at some stage engage with the fishermen on this and take advice on that. There needs to be balance here and proportionality on how it is addressed with safety always at the forefront."

One fishing industry group, which was involved in discussions with the Russian ambassador Yuri Filatov about the naval exercises in Dublin on Wednesday, said it only discovered after the meeting that Irish trawlers would not be fishing next week in the vicinity of the navy drills.

Brendan Byrne, chief executive of the Irish Fish Processors and Exporters Association (IFPEA), provided The Irish Times with a map created by marine newspaper The Skipper, in consultation with fishermen, showing that trawlers would be fishing some distance away from the location of the planned military exercises.

The trawlers would be fishing for prawns in the Porcupine Bank area to the north of the designated area where the Russian drills will take place.

The map, he said, was drafted for IFPEA using the coordinates published by the department and cross-referenced with the coordinates for the most southerly point for the fishing in that area.

"The net result is there is already a vast buffer zone between both areas. Had the department shared this data with the industry earlier, all of this could have been avoided," he said.

Mr Byrne said that it was clear to him that there would be a "natural safety zone" between the Russian naval vessels and the Irish fishing trawlers.

Denied statement

He was responding after the Russian embassy issued a denial to Mr Byrne's statement to the media on Wednesday that Mr Filatov and the fishing industry group had agreed to a "buffer zone" between the Russian naval vessels and the Irish fishing boats during the military drills.

An embassy spokesman said this was "not true".

"The ambassador has listened carefully to the concerns that the Irish fishermen expressed and explained to them that these drills will not do any harm to their interests," he said. "He also urged them to refrain from any provocative actions which might endanger all involved."

Up to 60 Irish trawlers are planning to fish in the area to the north of the Russian drills location from February 1st when the prawn quotas open up.

The exercises take place between February 3rd and 8th, according to the department's marine notice issued on the back of information given by Russia to the Irish Aviation Authority.

Sean O'Donoghue, chief executive of the Killybegs Fishermen's Organisation, said there would be no fishing activity in the location of the Russian drills at the time they are taking place.

Pelagic fishing vessels "from time to time fish in the vicinity of the Russian drill area but the blue whiting fishery will not be starting until around the middle of February and it is usually further north than the drill area", he said.

Other fishing, for albacore tuna, takes place there but not until the summer months, he said.

"The only other pelagic species that maybe in area is boarfish but I am pretty sure it is not a problem," he added.

[Sheilbh]

I have to be honest the ongoing row between the Russian defence ministry and embassy in Ireland with some Irish fishermen is my favourite sub-plot in this. I think the fishermen were initially suggesting they would go into the exercise and disrupt it

There's lots of speculation about the Russian navy choosing that site, incidentally.

[Tamas]

There is nothing funny or charming about it.

As you note maybe the Russians are itching for a Casus Belli, in which case Irish trawlers getting near their ships will be sunk and Ukraine will be invaded. So the Irish better dial down their own stereotypes and stay the heck away.

[Sheilbh]

There is nothing funny or charming about it.

If there's one thing likely to inspire a full military response from the EU it's people fucking with fishermen

[Eddie Teach]

I mean, this was when most Dems voted for the neocon agenda. The neocons were extending the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, they weren't inventing something completely new.

lolwut 

You have a peculiar recollection.

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

[Jacob]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

[Razgovory]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

Maybe?

[grumbler]

As you note maybe the Russians are itching for a Casus Belli, in which case Irish trawlers getting near their ships will be sunk and Ukraine will be invaded. So the Irish better dial down their own stereotypes and stay the heck away.

The last Russian fleet that blasted a bunch of fishing trawlers off Europe's northern coast faired poorly thereafter.

[Berkut]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the war in Iraq. As did many other Democratic Senators.

... so therefore Bush's invitation for Ukraine to join NATO is obviously progressive policy?

THe idea of expanding NATO eastward was

A) Part of the bi-partisan consensus on foreign policy, and
B) Arguably a "progressive" idea, in that it is an attempt to extend greater human rights/protections/western liberalism globally.

As I thought I tried to make very clear, it isn't mean "progressive" from the standpoint of modern day progressives vs. conservatives political teams.

[Razgovory]

The American left tends to bigger on alliances, including NATO, than the American Right.  One of the big complaints about the Iraq war was that it was dividing our allies.  Keep in mind that the Neocons were born out of the left.  They were the old leftists who hated the Soviet Union and were disgusted by the old left demanding an end to the Vietnam war.  They believed that Democracies didn't wage wars on another and if you spread enough Democracy it would result in world peace.  Back in the 1990's and 2000's the there was a chance to make right the wrongs committed during the Cold War.  America had abandoned Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal and that was seen as a moral wrong as well as a practical mistake.  If we could just establish democracy the people there wouldn't want war or extremist tyranny.

This didn't make them that different than the mainstream American left.