After the fall of the Soviet Union NATO suffered a existential threat of meaning. In other words, people began to question what NATO was protecting Europe from. The response was to demonize Putin and Russia. He is a dictator and a bad actor. We must be cautious. So went the narrative.
Putin did, quite publicly, say that he would be an idiot to attack NATO. Still, the danger of Russia continued to be played up by the 'Establishment'. Now, Russia has moved into the Donbas and has engaged in military strikes in parts of Ukraine outside of Donbas. The Establishment's narrative has gotten itself in a bit of a pickle. It wants to emphasize how horrific the attack has been while simultaneously emphasize how badly it is going for Russia. It is unclear how it can be both.
If one follows the rhetoric closely, which I understand few people do, this contradiction becomes apparent. Also, from the beginning, the narrative has been that Putin wants to 'take Ukraine' while Putin has repeatedly said that the goal is to keep the Ukrainian central government from subjugating the Donbas by force. Generally, I would say, if one assumes that Putin's goal was to annex Ukraine, then indeed, it is not going well. However, if the goal is to separate the Donbas from Ukrainian control then it isn't going quite so bad.
However, the 'Establishment' still has worked itself into a box with its narrative that will outlast the Ukrainian conflict, itself. Remember when the U.S. led forces (a coalition of the willing) blew right through Iraq's military? It only took a few days. Iraq almost surely had a more powerful military than Ukraine, but, whether Russia is succeeding in its true goal or not, it is not doing it with the ease that the U.S. had in Iraq. In other words, based upon these results, Russia just doesn't present much of a threat to NATO and Putin was correct - he would be an idiot to attack NATO.
As I have argued for a very long time, NATO should morph into a Western Military Alliance, expand and point itself toward the true threat of a progressively more bellicose China and its Arab allies. Actually, in that agenda, the Western Military Alliance, in addition to enlisting Japan and South Korea, should enlist Russia. In the long run, China is not its friend.
Hi all, I live in Canada. And the article " The Inappropriately Excluded " is really something that deeply resonates with me, and has helped make sense of my life. That I've been going back to it for years as a reference. But today found out there is this meetup group. Excellent stuff!
So I'm wondering what are people's interests here?
I like transition planning, and how we'll get through the end of oil,
archival of important documents, talking to international advisors and politicians about it. Also run several businesses. And do a lot of religious stuff,
cause that's best way of connecting with the uh IQ challenged majority in terms they can understand. So for that I run anabaptist.ca and got like outreach for all sorts of faiths, like humanism, islam, communists, chinese, hindus, christians etc: https://anabaptist.ca/dyet/
Hi! Just joined. I discovered this group through the Inappropriatelt Excluded article and it hit home. Looks very interesting :)
After Dobbs v Jackson, people are saying they want to move to Canada? Why? There is no part of Canada that allows abortion after 23 weeks. And, of course, nowhere in Europe are abortions legal after 24 weeks. So, if one really feels that access abortion is so important, the best thing to do is move to California. It has the most Progressive abortion laws pretty much anywhere, save China, North Korea, and Vietnam. Honestly, if this is your thing, then you should move to California. Whatever state you are in, they will celebrate your departure.
