The World Turned Upside Down (again)

Written By: - Date published: 4:52 pm, March 19th, 2025 - 73 comments
Categories: capitalism, class war, democracy under attack, Economy, International, political alternatives, tax, uncategorized - Tags: , ,

I went to school first in 1956, not in our brand-new Ford Popular, that symbol of my parents’ accession to the professional status of teacher, but on the crossbar of my father’s bike. The car was rendered redundant by the Suez Crisis and the disruption caused to oil supplies. Meanwhile, Hungary was in full play. Thereafter, through Kenya and Cuba and the Congo and Czechoslovakia and Vietnam and the Middle East (many times) and so much more, the world has seemed able to plot a course, perhaps marked by ignominy, horror, displacement of violence and a blind eye, which has avoided a generalised and nuclear war. In contrast, it’s striking how, today, people of my generation with some sense of history, widely accept that the world is in disarray not seen since the late 1930s, and ponder the threat of widespread military, even nuclear, confrontation.

The full account of this extraordinary and rapid plummet into geo-political disorder must wait. Suffice it to suggest that fifty years of decay of the 1930s Keynesian Accommodation and its post-war institutional arrangements – economic and geo-political – are coming home to roost. In my book, neo-liberals have a great deal to answer for. But that’s for another commentary. Understandably, thoughtful Marxists are in general avoiding saying “we told you so”!

Three things have been on my mind of late – sharks, 1789 and the 1930s rise of the Nazis.

Sharks are interesting. Many species must keep moving to ensure that water is passing through their gills. To stop is to die. It is a metaphor for the Putin kleptocracy. Any sense of Russian history suggests that if Putin and his cronies retreat, or divert from their current course of action, they will suffer the consequences. Ukraine is, in this sense, just a start – a Sudetenland, with drones. If victorious in Ukraine, Russia will turn its forces to other countries on its borders. This is one reason why the US President’s vaunted deal-making is unlikely to work with Russia. It is why Western Europe’s democracies are extending military budgets and forging new military cooperation. It is why, if Ukraine manages to defend successfully its sovereignty this time, there will be an intermission before the kleptocracy recommences its attack. Moreover, Russia’s actions – invasion and conquest on spurious historical grounds, but couched in a resurgent nationalism – fuel similar ideas elsewhere. Trump’s behaviour over Greenland and Canada, on the face of it, bizarre, is to be taken seriously. He, too, may be required to move forward inexorably.

Why 1789? 1789 in France is a telling example of how those who unleash major political and social change often, perhaps usually, have no inkling of its consequences. The Third Estate founders of the National Assembly, meeting on a Versailles tennis court in June, 1789, had no idea that their desire for a transition to an English-style “voice for the wealthy” democracy would lead to the Terror, its subsequent displacement, the consequent rise of Bonapartes’ imperial order and 35 years of warfare.

We are at a similar turning point today. Fifty years of erosion of the political and economic ground rules that applied from the 1930s to the 1970s is a starting point. Nothing has been built to replace it. Many domestic and international institutions are in disarray. Instead, we have the new inchoate nationalism, accompanied by ever-growing wealth inequality and deepening crisis. Liberal democracy is in decline as a new era of authoritarian government emerges. The global Right in its various guises prospers. The threat of war grows; countries are re-arming, at no little cost to standards of living. The siren call of appeasement is heard. Who knows where this will end, but the French President’s recent reference to nuclear options is chilling. In less than a decade, fears laid to rest in the 1980s have resurfaced. Uncertainty is the watchword.

And the reference to the rise of the Nazis in Germany? Long ago, Alfred Sohn-Rethel’s “The Economy and Class Structure of German Fascism” told the sorry story of the powerful capitalist interests, which thought they could use, then dispose of, the Nazis and their creed. The political forces released by fascism turned the tables on those interests, which became servants, rather than users, of fascist power. We see in the role of the large tech. companies a toadying to Trump and his agenda, which smacks of that same error made by German Capital, just as it would be a woeful error to believe that Putin’s agenda may be controlled by the power of Capital. Similarly, Trump is unleashing forces and challenges, which will not be subservient in any direct pr simple way to Capital’s functional interests. Where these forces will take us is as clear as mud.

Three insights, each suggesting a world facing a decade or more of instability, potentially marked by armed conflict at a level unseen for eighty years.

It follows that responsible governments have a triple role. First, they must accept that this is the situation. This is a challenge. The gap between domestic political debate and the world situation is growing apace. Sparring politically on the terrain of the pre-2020 world simply misses the challenges that face New Zealand.

Second, governments must protect their citizens from the worst of the international disruption. This means different things for different countries, but, for New Zealand, it means particularly building a shared resilience on the basis of much greater equality. This is why an unremitting focus on industry policy and taxation is required. That focus must be explained and justified.

Third, to the extent it is possible, New Zealand must work for a concerted international response to the crisis, which includes a focus on, inter alia, trade, a renewed rules-based international model and a newfound focus on transfers from developed to developing economies. This will not be easy.

73 comments on “The World Turned Upside Down (again) ”

  1. Matiri 1
    19 March 2025 at 5:51 pm

    I still remember watching the TV news when Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia in 1968. I was 9 at the time and grew up in the UK – the menacing threat from the USSR was very real to us Europeans. The USSR collapsed in 1991.

    Reply
    • Morrissey 1.1
      20 March 2025 at 7:45 am

      the menacing threat from the USSR was very real to us Europeans.

      Russia was going to invade the U.K. was it? Do you still feel "menaced" by those scary Communists?

      Reply
    • mikesh 1.2
      22 March 2025 at 11:16 pm

      In 1956 I was sitting in a babershop waiting for a haircut. The barber had his radio playing, and that was when I first heard the news of Russian tanks rolling into Hungary. At the time, being young and innocent, I was awed by it all. These days, however, whether we approve or disapprove of Kruschev's decision, I think it is more important to understand why he made that decision. If Hungary had been allowed to exit the Warsaw Pact, all the other members would wish to do likewise. Given that the Pact had the purpose of placing a buffer between Russia and Europe, it would have been silly to allow it to disolve itself.

      It seems a pity that Uncle Sam and John Bull were apparently unable to see the usefulness of such a buffer. If they had they may well have insisted that countries like Ukraine and Finland, and perhaps some other countries in the area, should adopt positions of neutrality, and the current war in Ukraine avoided; then perhaps Helsinki would feel a great deal safer than it may possibly be feeling at present.

      Reply
      • SPC 1.2.1
        23 March 2025 at 8:43 am

        Finland (and Sweden) joined NATO after Feb 2022.

        Of course Kruschev “was right” WP nations did not choose to be run by a one party communist regime it was imposed on them by the USSR.

        They were also nations of Europe, Russia has never needed a buffer between themselves and democratic western Europe to have peace.

        Reply
        • mikesh 1.2.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 9:39 am

          They were also nations of Europe, Russia has never needed a buffer between themselves and democratic western Europe to have peace.

          The same could have been said of Europe: and still can. Europe needs to wake up and realize that Russia is not a threat unless provoked. The idea that Russia is a threat is a myth put about by the USA to justify offering Europe "protection". Ukraine is now learning the hard way that prodding the bear is a dangerous pastime.

          I would hate to think tha Europe does realize this and is re-arming for reasons that are purely political.

          Reply
          • lprent 1.2.1.1.1
            23 March 2025 at 10:33 am

            In my view you really are an contemptible brain-dead gibbering idiot. Europe is rearming because Russia has directly invaded a neighbouring state and annexed their territory. Over the last 30 odd years they have supported and effectively occupied breakaway regions in several other neighbouring states, including Moldova, Georgia and several others that I can’t be bothered looking up links for.

            But for shits and giggles, Please explain to me without using your usual unthinking geo-political bullshit how Ukraine ‘provoked’ a response from Russia? That the right of their citizens to self-determination and to set their own economic or defence policy should be subjugated to the demands of a neighbouring state.

            Please avoid relating historical events in the Ukraine because your credibility about those is effectively zero. If we want bullshit lines from RT, then we can read or watch them ourselves. Comment on the logic of your position – which you somehow always seem to miss.

            After you have established the framework that says that Ukraine (or Europe) should trust the benevolence of the Russian Federation.

            Then perhaps you should apply the same logic between Australia and New Zealand, or New Zealand and pacific states. Because as far as I can see your logic simply says that one should always rely on the benevolence of large neighbouring states with large propaganda operations and their benevolent authoritarians.

            I always like pointing out the absurdities of fools.

            Reply
            • mikesh 1.2.1.1.1.1
              23 March 2025 at 1:50 pm

              You certainly have "a way with words" when it comes to hurling insults, and applaud your mastery in this regard. How it does not contribute anything in furtherance of a debate. Also I apologise for a typo in the last sentence of my comment above. I meant to say that I hope that Europe is not re-arming etc..

              As to your other comments I stand by what I said regarding Georgia and Crimea: entering only South Assetia to prevent it being absorbed, against its will, by Georgia. In Crimea it was pretty clear a majority of the population wanted to be part of Russia rather than part of Ukraine. The Moldovan question, I was not aware since it had never previously come to my attention. I have certainly never commented on Moldova previously, but I found this on Wikipedia:

              Russia gave formal and informal support to Moldovan secessionist, direct intervention of Russian 14th Guards Army stationed in Moldova on behalf of the secessionist side resulted in an end to the fighting and the emergence of the internationally unrecognized entity of Transnistria. Russian-brokered ceasefire, cemented the status quo, and left two separate groups of Russian military forces remained in Moldova: a small peacekeeping regiment,

              I don't why the secessionists were seceding. I may well investigate this further.

              As far as provocation is concerned I would say that the take over of the Ukrainian government by a bunch of Fascist/Nationalists, backed by Russia's main enemy, the US, forcing the elected president of the country to flee the capital infear of his life, and resulting in civil war between the Russophone East and the anti-Russian government would be provocation enough.

              Incidently, I don't think I mentioned Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific states.

              I always like pointing out the absurdities of fools.

              I'm sure you do, and "fools" like to point out the absurdities of the conventional wisdom.

              Reply
              • mikesh …
                23 March 2025 at 2:07 pm

                PS: My main concern in my comment was whether Western Europe had anything to fear from Russia. Wars and disputes around the Russian border, I did not think pertinent. Nothing in your reposnse gives me any reason to change my mind about that.

                Reply
              • lprent …
                23 March 2025 at 6:49 pm

                As to your other comments I stand by what I said regarding Georgia and Crimea: entering only South Assetia to prevent it being absorbed, against its will, by Georgia.

                Not exactly… Your ideas appear to quite simplistic (ie RT level PR) and take no apparent notice of what was going on at the time of separation.

                South Ossetia Oblast was semi-autonomous part of Georgia SSR in the first place. When Georgia was looking at splitting from the USSR, some Ossetian speaking locals created a local ethnic movement. Rather than doing peaceful actions, they apparently proceeded to start to loot and beat local ethnic Georgians as part of their political process – with the usual ethnic cleansing results.

                The accusation is that this conflict was a deliberate attempt by the USSR to prevent the Georgia SSR from going to independence (which they did in April 1991).

                Became a full blown civil conflict which the Soviet interior ministry troops entered into in 1991 along with Georgian interior ministry troops (and later newly raised Georgian national guard).

                The Soviet interior troops eventually gained control and disarmed the various militias after they gained control of South Ossetia.

                However there was a high degree of ethnic cleansing and/or refugee patterns happening. Consequently a massive change in population and demographics.

                As a result of the war, about 100,000 ethnic Ossetians fled the territory and Georgia proper, most across the border into North Ossetia. A further 23,000 ethnic Georgians fled South Ossetia to other parts of Georgia.[66]

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#1989%E2%80%932008

                The numbers are problematic because the pre-conflict estimates are about 90k population, about 2/3rds Ossetian and a third Georgian. But there was a lot of movement. But there was a lot of fleeing and returning going on over several years.

                Which makes the referendum taken in the South Ossetia in 1992 under any circumstances not representative of the pre-conflict population. At best the estimates for population to have been around 70k people in 1993 after the conflict, but scattered all over the place. It is hardly best conditions to have a viable referendum on separation. But that is what the Soviets did. It was also done with little international oversight and was regarded as being heavily flawed at every possible methodological level.

                BTW: The current population in South Ossetia is officially about 56k people in 2022 – almost entirely Ossetian – so not a growing community and no longer a very diverse one.

                In Crimea it was pretty clear a majority of the population wanted to be part of Russia rather than part of Ukraine.

                Bullshit. You appear to have a strange attitude about referendums taken by occupying troops as being valid and without actual independent observation have no validity. I don’t. In my opinion, like that of South Ossetia, the referendums in Crimea are just PR exercises for weak-minded apologist like you.

                Having Spetnaz in civilian clothes take over local government by force is kind of a dead give away. Having to use special forces to win a civil argument is a pretty clear indication of not being able to command a majority without the use of actual or implied force.

                Etc… I can’t be bothered pointing out that exactly the same gameplay has been done in several other Russian bordering states. Suffice to say that it has.

                //—–

                Incidently, I don’t think I mentioned Australia, New Zealand or the Pacific states.

                Of course not. That was exactly why I raised it – so you’d have to put it in a local contest as part of framework for how to do constitutional changes. My reasons were that you’d have to explain why something is valid in Russian bordering states and possibly not valid here.I was trying to find out how much of a full-blown hypocrite you are.

                I’d assume that by running away from the point like coward, that you don’t understand your own framework. Let me help you out by looking at the framework that you have supported.

                So as far as I can understand your views based on what you support Russia doing, you’d approve the following.

                If Australia wanted to annex a region of NZ it should:-

                1. Invading the area with interior ministry troops (ie armed police) or special forces in mufti
                2. Evict the existing local government because they don’t agree with the locals
                3. Ideally evict large numbers of the local population in areas away from your armed troops
                4. Disarm everyone left
                5. Hold a internationally unsupervised referendum under occupation and significiant population movement because that always gives the right result

                Because based on your rationalisations for Russian actions on their borders, you obviously think that this is a great way to deal with border issues near Russia. So you must support this as a general framework for changing NZ minds

                I’m sure you do, and “fools” like to point out the absurdities of the conventional wisdom.

                Yeah, well my ‘conventional wisdom’ says that you sound exactly like someone who would be support a authoritarian fascist. You’d happily misuse soldiers and police to get a ideological or constitutional result that you’d like.

                To me, you also sound like a complete arsehole who couldn’t give a damn about the people it would affect. In short you are a modern day tankie with a inability to think about consequences

                Reply
    • Bearded Git 1.3
      23 March 2025 at 3:47 am

      I was 14 years and in Switzerland when the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia…..it seemed too close for comfort.

      Reply
  2. lprent 2
    19 March 2025 at 6:13 pm

    Turns out that regardless of the documentation of history, people over time always seem to fade into the fallacy that maybe something is different in the 'modern' times. And what failed previously obviously wouldn't happen again because modern people were too smart for that trap.

    But it always does with pretty minor variations that are actually obvious. The horrible flaws of a currency standard based on scarcity. The fundamental stalemate between advantages of attack and defence in warfare when both sides know how (think of the different eras of drone defences, minefields, machine guns, artillery, and air cover).

    What over time changes is the length of life and how widespread the resulting destruction gets. Another couple of generations get scarred in largely pointless wars started stupidly and then invariably fought poorly because they don't come to actual endpoints that work. The Treaty of Versailles in 1919 being the obvious example.

    The great grand kids of the veterans of barbarism don't understand the lessons learnt – as much as anything else because the veterans of barbarism seldom talk about the reality of it. They talk to each other in places like the RSA – because explaining what actually happened is just too hard when talking to the wilfully ignorant.

    The patterns aren't hard to see. Just look for the populist political currents hunting for a free lunch with someone else doing the work, oligarchs thinking that they can control political currents and economies, and dumb-arse politicians flaring up a storm thinking that they can avoid the consequences.

    As I doom-scroll the Washington Post or the New York Times, it documents the same kind of stupidity that so clearly showed in the 15 years before 1914 when I read microfiche of newspapers in my youth. Then the subsequent hot war with an intervening ceasefire that continued to rage until it largely fizzled out in China in a standoff in 1949.

    Then the cold war that brought a relatively long peace.

    So clearly there are a lot of god-damn sheep genes amongst humans. They bleat like idiots, or David Seymour

    Reply
  3. joe90 3
    19 March 2025 at 6:23 pm

    the sorry story of the powerful capitalist interests, which thought they could use, then dispose of, the Nazis and their creed.

    In 1933 Ernst Thaalmann, leader of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), thought he would be the German chancellor after Hitler.

    Reply
  4. aj 4
    19 March 2025 at 6:55 pm

    This is a good post but only touches some areas. China is not mentioned, nor the decline of the G7 countries and the rise of BRICS.

    The world has become a far more complex place in the last 40 years and I'm not sure if history will be a reliable guide to how things play out.

    Reply
  5. roblogic 5
    19 March 2025 at 8:28 pm

    No war but class war.

    A common theme seems to be an increasingly psychotic oligarch class fomenting chaos to weaken democratic movements and steal even more of the common wealth for themselves.

    Reply
    • Phillip ure 5.1
      20 March 2025 at 9:53 am

      The 'entitled' and the 'sorted'…

      …for them the common wealth is there to be milked…for their own benefit…

      This is reason number 53 that we need a total re-evaluation of how we are doing things…

      ..as the system is currently set up to steeply favour those already 'entitled' and 'sorted'..

      ..the rest of us are being screwed whichever way we turn..

      ..this is what we need to fix..

      … and I can't think of a better time..in the sense of finding an audience ..for such structural changes…

      ..it seems fairly clear that a large segment of the population already knows that things are seriously out of whack..

      …and they want it fixed…

      …and this brings us to the key point..that any policy solutions to our current ills must be able to be clearly explained to that audience..

      ..where and why the problems are..and how they will be fixed .

      ..these policy solutions must be both coherent and economically-literate…

      And yes..there will be winners and losers..the winners being those currently suffering from these economic imbalances…

      ..and the losers being our 'entitled' and our 'sorted'…

      ..and all I can say to them is to get a box of (paper) straws…

      … and to just suck it up…

      Reply
      • roblogic 5.1.1
        20 March 2025 at 10:30 pm

        If the 1% had any sense they would understand that paying tax is the price of civilisation, but evidently they want a war torn disease ridden society (and climate collapse) with no inconvenient things like tax or the rule of law or educated serfs.

        Reply
  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    20 March 2025 at 10:14 am

    A key factor apart from the return and dominance of neoliberalism, has been the transition from analogue to digital. Karl Marx would likely quickly have recognised crypto currency as a new form of Finance Capital.

    This is an era of great instability which will only be survived with international class solidarity.

    Reply
  7. Ad 7
    20 March 2025 at 11:42 am

    Honestly I think we're over-egging Trump as a crisis to anything.

    I could do a whole post but our main trading partners love what we do esp at $10 milk payout, we're secure and on multiple levels safe, people want to visit and live and invest here, unemployment hasn't exploded, and we're just beginning to get our economic mojo back with a late 2024 GDP list of .7%.

    And to get to the point: the Left aren't going to get back in with pessimism and rage like the right do.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 7.1
      20 March 2025 at 12:23 pm

      If the right thrives on fear, the left has to counter with real hope: grounded in action, not just sentiment.

      Hope for a fairer and more equal share of the economic pie. Hope for a more peaceful and more just world. Hope for a society that will look after the least of us as well as it does those that are "sorted." Hope for decent jobs at decent wages. And hope for the opportunity to be judged by our willingness to help our neighbours: not line our pockets.

      Unlike the right, we can't call back to some halcyon past. But we don't have to. We shouldn't care about what our society used to be. We should be excited and energized by what it can become.

      The next election won't be won on the details of tax policy. Or education. Or health. It'll be won by whoever can tell the best and most compelling story about who we are and where we are going as a country.

      Let's make sure that whatever that story is, that it's one we can believe in.

      Reply
  8. mikesh 8
    20 March 2025 at 12:50 pm

    It's dfficult to see Putin as some latter day Napoleon. Ever the pragmatist, his only concern is, I think, the protection of Russia's borders from the advance of NATO.

    Paranoia seems to have overtaken Europe.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 8.1
      20 March 2025 at 1:11 pm

      It's dfficult to see Putin as some latter day Napoleon. Ever the pragmatist, his only concern is, I think, the protection of Russia's borders from the advance of NATO.

      Poor lamb; forced to invade a very much non-NATO member Ukraine to protect Russia from what, exactly? Democracy? The inevitable march of time and entropy? Some ill-defined international fascist conspiracy hastily manufactured by the Kremlin to retroactively legitimize some ill-thought-out attempt at revanchism?

      Funny how your conception of 'protecting’ borders seems to require invading and dismantling someone else’s.

      Reply
    • aj 8.2
      20 March 2025 at 1:28 pm

      German reaction to the Ukraine fiasco is to double down on the EU cold war with Russia. This is massive irony, given the US blew up Nordsteam. This act of war massively increased energy prices which helped plunged the German economy into decline. Nordstream was a German/Russian joint venture to supply cheap gas.

      Reply
  9. mikesh 9
    20 March 2025 at 3:09 pm

    Funny how your conception of 'protecting’ borders seems to require invading and dismantling someone else’s.

    So, you apparently think he should have sat around twiddling his thumbs while Ukraine joined NATO, and then watched NATO, led by the evil empire, plant missiles on the Ukraine/Russia border. There are some who think that attack is the best form of defence, and they are so often right. Putin's only problem was that he waited too long – probably relying on Poroschenko, and later Zelenskyy, sticking to the Minsk agreements: fat chance of that! – which gave the Ukrainians time to get their act together.

    The only "poor lambs" around are the Ukrainians who seem to have found themselves the "meat" in the NATO/Russian sandwhich.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 9.1
      20 March 2025 at 3:36 pm

      Please, do tell me more about how much you love facism and war crimes, as long as they're done by your favourite strongman.

      I especially love hearing putative Leftists beating themselves off to Kremlin propoganda.

      But back in the real world, Ukraine was never any kind of threat to Russia and the war is nothing more than a hamfisted attempt by Putin to reimpose the Russian empire by force.

      In places outside your wee little tankie circlejerk, that makes them the bad guys.

      Reply
      • mikesh 9.1.1
        20 March 2025 at 4:36 pm

        Insult me if you must, but remember: such insults are no substitute for reasoned argument; they just make you look like a moron.

        PS: it was not not so much Ukraine that was the problem. It was the evil empire and NATO. The Ukranians were just allowing themselves to be used as cannon fodder.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 9.1.1.1
          20 March 2025 at 10:11 pm

          I dont have to insult you.

          I'm choosing to because you're a dangerous moron parroting Russian propaganda in the place of any kind of serious foreign policy analysis.

          No amount of pearl clutching and acting offended is going change the fact you're simping for war criminals.

          Reply
      • Morrissey 9.1.2
        20 March 2025 at 8:59 pm

        … you love facism [sic] and war crimes…. putative Leftists beating themselves off to Kremlin propoganda [sic]… your wee little tankie circlejerk…

        That sad little farrago of name-calling looks even worse when it's so illiterate and careless.

        no

        Reply
        • Res Publica 9.1.2.1
          20 March 2025 at 9:56 pm

          The only sad thing about any of this, Morrisey, is the mods puzzling ongoing tolerance for your puerile whaboutism in defence of a regime thats guilty of every single crime you gleefully accuse the USA of.

          A regime whose bullshit you continue to repeat in a sad attempt to appear more profound than you actually are.

          Reply
          • Morrissey 9.1.2.1.1
            20 March 2025 at 10:31 pm

            The only sad thing about any of this, Morrisey [sic], is the mods [sic] puzzling ongoing tolerance for your puerile whaboutism [sic] in defence of a regime that’s [sic] guilty of every single crime you gleefully [???!?!?] accuse the USA of.

            That's illiterate.

            A regime whose bullshit you continue to repeat

            That's simply a false statement.

            in a sad attempt to appear more profound than you actually are.

            That's two consecutive sentences in which you've employed the adjective "sad" in an attempt to be pejorative. It's a limp enough insult at any time; using it like you have doesn't make it any more effective.

            Maybe you could do with a good rest.

            Reply
    • aj 9.2
      20 March 2025 at 5:11 pm

      If the USA had a legitimate fear of a decapitation strike from Cuba in 1962, is Russia entitled to a similar fear should NATO base nuclear weapons on the border between Ukraine and Russia? Even Kissinger thought so.

      Reply
          • Morrissey 9.2.1.1.1
            20 March 2025 at 7:20 pm

            RT, Al Jazeera, Deutsche Welle, France 24, the BBC, the ABC, RNZ: they're all state broadcasters and should all be treated with skepticism. That doesn't mean their output should be summarily dismissed. Hell, even the BBC, when it's not relaying black propaganda against dissident journalists and banning anti-genocide documentaries, produces some excellent television.

            Your scoffing dismissal will convince nobody, of course.

            Reply
          • aj 9.2.1.1.2
            20 March 2025 at 8:56 pm

            People can do their own research on the veracity of that reporting. Facts matter.

            Reply
            • Morrissey 9.2.1.1.2.1
              20 March 2025 at 9:01 pm

              Facts matter.

              Not for Grauniad-infected Russiagate conspiracy nuts.

              Reply
              • Res Publica …
                20 March 2025 at 10:17 pm

                Or to Kremlin trolls

                Reply
                • Morrissey …
                  20 March 2025 at 10:43 pm

                  How ridiculous you seem when you write something like that. Have you thought of applying for a job with, say, MSNBC? You'd fit in nicely in that paranoid joint. crying

                  https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/03/27/rachel-maddows-deep-delusion-226266/

                  Reply
                  • Res Publica …
                    21 March 2025 at 2:29 am

                    Dude, you can’t even do a takedown properly. “Maybe you should work for MSNBC”? Oh no, not that!

                    What a brutal, soul-crushing insult. I am devastated.

                    And hey, if I did work for a media company, at least I’d be getting paid for my opinions—unlike you, who shills for free.

                    Imagine bootlicking a corrupt, authoritarian regime as a hobby.

                    That’s just sad.

                    Reply
                    • Morrissey …
                      21 March 2025 at 6:55 am

                      No, I was joking. You're no Rachel Maddow. Before she lost her marbles in 2015, she was an interesting and entertaining broadcaster. I read and admired her book Drift a few years ago. It's brilliant, and a melancholy reminder of what she was capable of before she became a Clintonite shill.

      • Res Publica 9.2.2
        20 March 2025 at 10:00 pm

        Are you just stupid? Or willfully ignorant?

        I'll spell it out for you in simple sentences since you obviously have the intellectual depth of a paddling pool, and the same grasp of foreign policy as my 18 month old daughter.

        Ukraine. Is. And. Was. Not. A. Member. Of. NATO.

        Russia. Invaded. Them. Which. Makes. Them. Bad.

        Reply
        • mikesh 9.2.2.1
          21 March 2025 at 7:56 am

          Zelenskyy has made no secret of his desire to get Ukraine into NATO, and the US has made no secret of wanting them to join. So it was probably advisable for Russia to take preemptive action before they became a member. It seems to be current thinking that countries like Ukraine should observe a strict neutrality as between East and West. The same would apply to Finland but those silly fools apparently are now a NATO member, and this seems likely to create further tension in the area once Ukraine is sorted out, particularly if the US continues its present isolationist stance. Europe seems unlikely to want to assist Finland if Russia decides to invade the country, or fire missiles at Helsinki from across the gulf.

          Reply
          • Res Publica 9.2.2.1.1
            21 March 2025 at 9:31 am

            Zelenskyy has made no secret of his desire to get Ukraine into NATO, and the US has made no secret of wanting them to join

            It’s almost like Ukraine is an independent country with its own strategic objectives and foreign policy or something. Funny that!

            Maybe Zelenskyy, being neither a Russian puppet like Yanukovych nor an idiot, saw Russia’s prior actions in the Donbas and Crimea as an existential threat and correctly interpreted them as a prelude to invasion? If I were in his place, I’d definitely be looking around for friends with lots of shiny military hardware.

            Even if we accept the deeply flawed premise that the invasion was just a Russian response to NATO expanding to its borders, the main driver for Eastern European countries wanting to join NATO in the first place was Russia’s habit of invading its neighbors—Chechnya in the 1990s, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and Donbas shortly after. Turns out, watching the Kremlin roll tanks into other people's countries tends to make former Soviet states a little jumpy.

            As for Finland, they've been subjected to Russian invasion multiple times, most recently in the 1930s and 40s. The only reason they weren’t in NATO before was because they judged that joining might provoke another war. Then Russia decided to throw caution (and thousands of troops) to the wind in Ukraine, proving once and for all that “watchful neutrality” is just another term for “waiting to be invaded alone.” The Finns aren't suicidal or naïve and have correctly judged it is better to have some well-armed friends at the table rather than just hope for the best.

            And let's not pretend Europe would sit back if Russia tried anything against Finland. As a NATO member, an attack on Finland is an attack on all of NATO. Unlike Ukraine, Finland wouldn’t be fighting alone—so unless Russia is keen on testing NATO’s Article 5, Helsinki has nothing to worry about.

            But my biggest criticism of your position? Your complete inability to accept the agency of millions of Finns, Georgians, Ukrainians, Poles, Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians—all of whom suffered under Russian occupation in living memory. Funny how the people who actually lived through Soviet rule seem to be the ones sprinting towards NATO membership at the first opportunity.

            Almost as if they know something you don’t.

            Reply
            • mikesh 9.2.2.1.1.1
              21 March 2025 at 7:05 pm

              It’s almost like Ukraine is an independent country with its own strategic objectives and foreign policy or something. Funny that!

              A country's foreign policy needs to take into consideration the needs of the situation in which they find themselves. With Russia to the East of them and Europe to the West, surely a position of neutrality would have been amore appropriate policy.

              Maybe Zelenskyy, being neither a Russian puppet like Yanukovych nor an idiot,

              Yanukovich was an elected president; however, I supect Zelenskyy may be a puppet of he fascist group that took over the Ukranian government in 2014.

              countries wanting to join NATO in the first place was Russia’s habit of invading its neighbors—Chechnya in the 1990s, Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014

              I think the invasion of Chechnya was a result of terrorists moving into Chechnya. I seem to recall that Chechnyans took over a Russian theatre and held the patrons hostage. This though was before Putin's time as premier. The Georgian "invasion" I think was not an actual invasion of Georgia itself but a defense of South Assetia, which Georgia was trying to absorb against their will. Crimea was annexed rather than invaded. The "little green men" that you or someone else referred to earlier were already in Crimea by agreement with the Ukrainian government. They were a force of about 20,000 I think put there to operate and defend Russia' naval base in Crimea. The annexation followed a couple of referenda which indicated that the majority of Crimeans wanted be part of Russia.

              And let's not pretend Europe would sit back if Russia tried anything against Finland. As a NATO member, an attack on Finland is an attack on all of NATO. Unlike Ukraine, Finland wouldn’t be fighting alone—so unless Russia is keen on testing NATO’s Article 5, Helsinki has nothing to worry about.

              I'm wondering if Finland might change their minds about NATO membership given Trump's apparent attitudes, and knowing that Europe is probably incapable of defending them against Russia. I'm sure comrade Lavrov will be pointing all this out to them. The 1930's and 40's by the way were a long time ago.

              As far as countries wishing to join NATO are concerned NATO was not obliged to accept them; and they probably shouldn't have accepted them given the apparent necessity of having a buffer between them and Russia. As I understand matters that was the purpose of the Warsaw Pact in the first place. Also there was apparently a promise made to Gorbachev in 1989 that NATO would not move an inch further eastward.

              Reply
              • SPC …
                21 March 2025 at 7:17 pm

                Apparently, but Gorbachev never confirmed it.

                Second, there is no historical basis for the claim that NATO broke a promise not to expand eastward. No formal treaty or written agreement containing such a sweeping commitment exists. Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at the time, explicitly refuted this narrative. In an October 2014 interview with Russia Beyond, he stated plainly: “The topic of NATO expansion was not discussed at all.”

                According to diplomatic historian Mary Sarotte, declassified records show that discussions concerned NATO forces in former East Germany specifically – not a permanent ban on sovereign nations joining the alliance. Sachs’s claim rests entirely on selective interpretations of informal discussions during German reunification. This is hardly the basis for a binding international commitment that would permanently deny sovereign nations their right to choose alliances.

                The 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act further undermines this “broken promise” narrative. In this formal agreement, Russia acknowledged NATO’s plans for expansion while receiving assurances about military deployments. If a binding “no expansion” pledge had existed in 1990, this later document would have been unnecessary.

                https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/

                Reply
                • SPC …
                  21 March 2025 at 7:26 pm

                  The Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, also known as the "Big Treaty", was an agreement signed in 1997 between Ukraine and Russia, which fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders, and respect for territorial integrity and mutual commitment not to use its territory to harm the security of each other.

                  Borders were agreed in 2003. The agreement was rolled over every 10 years.

                  On December 6 2018 the Ukrainian parliament declared the Treaty to be terminated starting from April 1, 2019.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian%E2%80%93Ukrainian_Friendship_Treaty

                  Reply
    • Scud 9.3
      20 March 2025 at 10:06 pm

      🇺🇦 was never going to be expected into NATO while it's Eastern Territories are under 🇷🇺 occupation!

      You need to read up on the Rules for joining NATO!

      🇺🇦 would've been better had it joined the EU before Russia occupied or just after those 🇺🇦 Eastern Territories were occupied by 🇷🇺.

      But 🇺🇦 put a lot of faith into the Lisbon Protocols & Budapest Memorandum that the US & UK would honour it's Security Guarantees, which both countries failed to do when Tsar Poots sent in his little green men to occupy 🇺🇦 Eastern Territories.

      Even now incl the Biden & Obama administrations, the Yanks have been dragging their heels in honouring their Security Guarantees under the Lisbon Protocols & Budapest Memorandum unlike the rest of the Western Democracies incl Oz & NZ.

      As for our part of the World, 2027 will be our crunch time too see if those assumptions become fact when China has a crack at retaking Taiwan.

      Where will you & Mike Smith incl those Kiwi's on twitter stand on this, when another democracy is invaded? After all you mob on from left incl some on the right, say China isn't a threat & isn't going to invade anyone the Asian Pacific Region?

      Reply
      • mikesh 9.3.1
        21 March 2025 at 8:34 am

        [Ukraine] would've been better had it joined the EU before Russia occupied or just after those Eastern Territories were occupied by [Russia].

        She probably couldn't under NATO rules since there was a longstanding border dispute in existance. Yeltsin referred to this dispute when he agreed to Ukrainian indendence in the early nineties, doing so probably to prevent Ukraine joining NATO. He added that Russia would probably not pursue this dispute as long as Ukraine remained "friendly". However her "friendliness" ended in 1014.

        Where will you & Mike Smith incl those Kiwi's on twitter stand on this, when another democracy is invaded? After all you mob on from left incl some on the right, say China isn't a threat & isn't going to invade anyone the Asian Pacific Region?

        It seems to be agreed that Taiwan is part of mainland China anyway, though the latter would prefer to regain its territory by diplomatic means. China will probably, at an opportune moment, make them an offer they can't refuse.

        Reply
  10. Mike Smith 10
    20 March 2025 at 3:18 pm

    Any sense of Russian history would reject the notion of a "Putin kleptocracy." The kleptocracy happened under Yeltsin twenty-five years ago, and Putin has either put the oligarchs back in their box or sent them into exile.

    Any sense of history would also remember that it was Russia that has been invaded from the West through the centuries. First by the king of the Swedes and then by Napoleon, both to disaster. It was Lord Palmerston of 'opium war' fame that wanted the Crimean War to continue to Russia's eastern border, and it was Churchill who supported war against the Bolsheviks. It was Hitler that sought lebensraum if you believe that – all of them wanted to plunder Russia's resources.

    A more recent historian might have listened to Putin's speech at the 2007 Munich Security conference, and taken notice. Or studied the Minsk accords, ratified by the UN Security council, and noted the subsequent admissions by Merkel and Hollande that they were considered a ruse to allow Ukraine to arm up and be trained by NATO, as Stoltenberg admitted, to attack the dissident Russian-speaking oblasts in the east.

    The big lie of course is that Russia's incursion into Ukraine was "unprovoked." However it hasn't proceeded according to the Western plan, as US sanctions haven't reduced the rouble to rubble. Europe's industrial economy has been devastated with the loss of cheap Russian gas, and the Americans are picking up the pieces as well as looking forward to further pickings from Europe's desperation rearmament.

    Yes toys are being thrown out of cots at an alarming rate in the West in some kind of Samsonian orgy. It is the Western billionaires running the show who expect to pick up the pieces after the crash.

    It is Russia and China who have seen the writing on the wall and are resisting. The West has nobody anywhere near the calibre of Putin and Xi Jinping.

    Reply
    • Res Publica 10.1
      20 March 2025 at 3:43 pm

      You mean, not having thuggish dictators at the head of brutal regimes that dissapear their own people, murder their critics, and invades other countries is a bad thing!?

      I'm sorry, but I thought we generally accepted that democracy and the the rule of law was good, and human rights abuses were bad.

      My mistake comrade. I forgot that we were supposed to be morally and intellectually bankrupt and parrot whatever Moscow told us to say.

      So hard to keep track of the party line these days…

      Reply
      • mikesh 10.1.1
        20 March 2025 at 4:53 pm

        When has the evil empire ever bothered about "democracy and the rule of law" ? Putin has a pretty good idea of what they are about, which is why he attempting to defend Russia from them. However if you are concerned about empire building Putin is not the person you should be looking at. Better you talk with the Canadians and the Greenlanders.

        Is there a party line? If there is I'm guessing you are more familiar with it than we are.

        Reply
        • Res Publica 10.1.1.1
          20 March 2025 at 10:16 pm

          Cool story bro. Needs more dragons and less specious attempts at false moral equivalence.

          You think campism makes you cool and smart and edgy. It doesn't.

          Reply
          • Morrissey 10.1.1.1.1
            20 March 2025 at 11:01 pm

            "Moral equivalence"? Russia has not set the Middle East on fire. Russia did not destroy Iraq. Russia has not supported Al Qaeda in Libya and Syria. Russia has not sponsored the attempted genocides in Yemen, Gaza, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. Russia has not systematically attacked and overthrown democratic governments in Central and South America. Russia is not waging a ceaseless campaign of provocation against, and demonisation of, China. Russia does not have more than 750 military bases in over eighty different countries.

            Russia is not a democratic or tolerant regime by any means—but for someone like you, parroting what you've heard from talking heads on the British state broadcaster or its repeater stations in New Zealand, to suggest that Russia is in any way comparable to Washington's Empire of Chaos and Deceit is simply risible.

            Reply
            • Res Publica 10.1.1.1.1.1
              21 March 2025 at 2:16 am

              Oh wow, what a bold and original take—“BuT… aMeRiCa BaD, RuSsIa GuD.”

              Truly, a revolutionary insight.

              Never mind that Russia bankrolls Iran and North Korea, propped up Assad while he dropped barrel bombs on civilians, and sends mercenaries to prop up some of the nastiest regimes in Africa.

              Never mind that it razed Chechnya, invaded Ukraine, regularly poisons dissidents abroad and imprisons opposition leaders at home, and slaughters civilians when it suits its interests.

              Nope! Because America Bad, that must mean Russia is somehow noble and pure.

              Let’s be real: you’re not some fearless truth-teller standing against Western imperialism. You’re just a dishonest coward who swapped one blind loyalty for another.

              You don’t give a damn about war crimes, oppression, or human suffering unless it’s politically convenient for you. You erase the agency of Ukrainians, Syrians, and anyone else caught in Russia’s crosshairs because their suffering doesn’t fit your narrative.

              So spare us the self-righteous posturing. You’re not exposing hypocrisy.

              You are hypocrisy, dressed up as the worst kind of comfortable, smug, self satisfied moral superiority.

              Reply
              • Morrissey …
                21 March 2025 at 6:47 am

                As well as rambling, incoherent, and barely literate, your reply is riddled with falsehoods.

                The most amusing of those statements is this one: "Russia bankrolls Iran…"

                Could you furnish us with some evidence to support that?

                Reply
                • Res Publica …
                  21 March 2025 at 9:04 am

                  I suspect no level of evidence is ever going to convince you to change the empty void that purportedly contains your mind.

                  But for what it's worth:

                  Russia is supplying Iran with modern military equipment and expertise

                  and

                  Allegedly handing over fistfuls of hard currency in exchange for thousands of Iranian drones

                  Reply
                  • mikesh …
                    21 March 2025 at 10:53 am

                    So what? Assad was the official ruler of Iran.

                    Reply
                    • Res Publica …
                      21 March 2025 at 2:26 pm

                      You mean Syria, right? If you’re going to be a shill for strongmen, at least get them straight.

                      But hey, you accidentally made a valid point!

                      If backing recognized governments justifies intervention and/or war crimes, that applies to Ukraine too.

                      Unless you're claiming Ukraine isn’t independent or its elected government is illegitimate?

                    • mikesh …
                      21 March 2025 at 5:20 pm

                      Sorry, I got that wrong, but when I tried to correct my mistake the website seemed to have closed down and I was unable to access it.

                      Of course countries can form alliances and support each other, but they must be willing to accept the cosequences if they ally themselves with the mortal enemy of another country, a neighbour in particular, and that other country sees that as a threat.

                    • lprent …
                      21 March 2025 at 6:42 pm

                      What SPC said….

                      Chorus decided that the day I'd organised (5 weeks previously) to upgrade the internet router should be three days later than I'd pencilled in.

                      Which meant it was now on the same day as jobs day, which also had my previously organised 6 months previously dentist tooth cleaning, a penetration test report arriving, and organising a towbar place to put a new toward with a ISO 50mm ball on the Honda Fit hybrid….

                      All of which happened at roughly the same time – along with my student niece doing the cleaning. It was not a good day

                      I was upgrading the link to the server to a 2 gigabit hyperlink today with the phone going off every few minutes while making sure that my new ONT hooked up to my new 2.5 gigabit wifi router and connected to the internet. Had to get voyager to convert from PPoE to IPoE. And then setup the firewall.

                      The site bounced up and down quite a few times. 🙁

                      Sorry….

    • Scud 10.2
      21 March 2025 at 2:13 am

      Russia has always been an inward looking, insecure Nation even since the hordes rode in from the East which were finally stopped by famous Winged Polish Lancers at Vistula & the famous Winged Hussars from Hungary on the Danube.

      Even now into the 21st century, no much has changed iRT how Russia see itself or that matter how world sees Russia atm under Tsar Poots.

      Even the Tsar Poots words & actions even before Ukraine & Georgia Wars kicked off, he always want to rebuild the Russian/ USSR Empire as it was before the end of CW.

      Those like Tsar Poots and obviously some here at The Standard believe Imperial & USSR did no wrong to the point they were better than the Capitalist West?

      But those from Eastern Europe & some nations from the former States that made the Imperial & USSR Russia suggests otherwise!

      Heck even just reading the autobiographies of Eduard Shevardnadze & Mikhail Gorbachev, pretty describes a cock & bull Utopia like it was festering gangrene scab ready to burst open in USSR at the time.

      Because no one was willing to acknowledge or accept what was happening in USSR before it's collapsed because the system was inward looking & insecure of the truth.

      Just like the US is today or even GB in the interwar period, that it's Empire days were numbered (some would suggest it's days were numbered before WW1, when look at various metrics like economic, Industry development & social policies vs Europe & US.)

      The break up of the old Imperial Russia/ USSR in 91, left it even more insecure, paranoia & inward looking because it's former Satellite Countries & Colonies were free too choose their own way in world.

      In Eastern Europe incl Ukraine, Georgia & some degree Belarus looked to the EU & those in Eastern Europe asked to join NATO for various reasons.

      This upset the likes of Tsar Poots who like many others of his vintage believe in the old glory days of Russia Imperial USSR Days where it could do no wrong.

      But as Eduard Shevardnadze said in his autobiography, we the USSR & greater part Imperial Russia, did a lot of damage because of our inward looking, paranoia & more to the fact of our own insecurities that we actually destroyed trust & respect for & from Moscow the centre of Imperial & USSR.

      Yet people like Tsar Poots & those here at The Standard or over at Bombers blog, wonder why Eastern Europe have joined the EU & asked to join NATO?

      It's because of the insecurities, paranoia & inward looking Leadership that came out of Imperial & USSR Russia.

      Or this Quote from:

      Eduard Shevardnadze, when asked about Eastern Europe joining the EU & Eastern Europe?

      "Who can blame them for joining the EU & NATO, after what Imperial & more to the point,what USSR Russia did to them!

      Because if I was a Leader in one those countries? I would do the same, as Russia can not be trusted regardless of who's running the country!"

      That's actually what Eduard Shevardnadze did or tried to do, when he was the President of Georgia. For Georgia to join the EU & ask to join NATO.

      China is the same in some ways, but has a massive chip on it shoulders due too the Imperial West which also incl Imperial 🇷🇺 & the US from colonial times of the 1800's when it was forced to crede parts of its Territories & some cases saw parts of Territory Annex by Imperial 🇷🇺. Which btw China has recently produced a new map of it's lost Siberian Territories in Chinese, has led to all sorts of speculation & assumptions of Chinese intentions especially with Tsar Poots bogged down in Ukraine atm.

      China even had Foreign Navy's sailing up & down the Yangtze River to protect the European & Japanese Trade concessions.

      Again the CCP has become paranoia, insecure & a contradiction ie Xi seems inward looking given a number of purges that has happened at both the military & civilian levels within the Party. While trying to be outward looking at the same time while portraying that China comes in Peace & promoting so-called Co China Economic Sphere?

      But as a Student of History & Military History, haven't I heard this sentence before & people saying this particular country is of no threat?

      To me China remains me of an old school authoritarian regime, that will eventually collapse under its weight because of the way it controls its people especially with its young population & we must remember it's demographics is becoming more like a Xmas tree ie smaller cohort of young people at the bottom with a larger aging/ elderly population at the top instead of the pyramid.

      Another thing that has happened over the last year or so in China. It's suppressed/ now made it a National State Security Secret IRT it's Youth Unemployment Numbers which was running about between 20% to 25% depending on what article you read before the economic data was suppressed by the State!

      Again as student of History, Political & Military History.

      When the Youth start rattling the cage over various motivated issues, authoritarian regimes because of their inward looking, paranoia & insecurity etc do one of 2 things to keep the status quo.

      Put unrest down & in most cases quite brutally or it tries to unite the country by going to war.

      Given what I've read on open source material & close source material. I've formed an opinion/ assumption that Xi will choose latter one & that will happen in 2027-28.

      (Please Note: I've made mention of this over a number of yrs here on The Standard under my previous nom de plume & under my current moniker).

      There is some historical context to this IRT the CCP & to Xi's late Father within the CCP. Who was in-charge of the reunification of Taiwan back to the Chinese Mainland, who failed in his quest as a member of the CCP Politburo. Which to Xi is a lost of face & Prestige to the Family at his Dad's failure.

      Is Xi going to ride to success on a White horse or is Xi going to fall of his White Horse like Stalin did during rehearsals for the Patriotic War/ VE Day parade in Moscow 45?

      Also how are the Pro China fraction here in The Standard & elsewhere in NZ bearing in mind both sides of the political spectrum have a Pro China fraction & what be the response when China invades a free democratic Taiwan?

      Again we can look at history & what happened to Japan when it invaded China in the 30's & look where that got us!

      Some of the pro Trade Japan & Japan is no threat to us were never allowed to forget it either.

      One of those was Pig Iron Bob aka Bob "Ming Menzies from Australia. Who was in favour of exporting Pig Iron to Japan in the 20's & 30's right up until the Unions blacklisted exports to pig iron & other associated goods that could have dual civilian & Military purpose/ produce Military Arms.

      To those on the left side of Australia Politics especially where my dad use live & work in the place nicknamed the outback Kremlin aka Broken Hill.

      He was always known as Pig Iron Bob by the Unions & the Jap POW's!

      Reply
    • Nigel Haworth 10.3
      22 March 2025 at 12:50 pm

      Current analysis of power distribution in Russia broadly concurs with a view that suggests the original “kleptocracy” – indeed “dealt to” by Putin – has been replaced by new wealth structures – equally kleptocratic – bounded by the Putin clique’s power. There is plausible coverage of massive personal wealth accumulation by Putin, held at arm’s length. Sums as high as $200 billion are bandied about. At the lower end, $70 billion has been touted on occasions. And the murk around “Putin’s Palace” on the Black Sea reeks.

      Any sense of Russian history understands both defence and attack by the Russian state. For example, the expansion of the Imperial Russian frontier east and south was a colonial expansion. Karelia was fought over endlessly. The history of Poland and Russia is a catalogue of expansion and contraction. The Great Game was a feature of Russian challenges to British colonial spheres of influence. Soviet expansionism in the aftermath of the Revolution was attempted, and failed. The creation of client states under Stalinist disciplines after 1945 did little for the doctrine of self determination. Russia was, too, on occasion, attacked as, for example, in the case of Bonaparte, the Crimea, after the Revolution, and in 1941.

      I have still to understand the detail of Munich, Minsk and related arrangements. I do understand that there are aspects of Ukraine’s politics in the recent past, which are unedifying. That said, I cannot see a position that can be acceptable to the Left other than self determination for Ukraine without the threat of invasion, from any quarter, and with the right to ally as seen fit.

      There is nothing in Putin’s Russia bearing any resemblance to socialist internationalism. We have long left behind the “deformed workers’ state”, and similar, models. The collapse of the Soviet Union, guided by appalling advice from the West, has, for now, relegated that tradition to irrelevance. This is why a delineation between Russia, under a bureaucratic capitalist oligarchy, and China, under continuing one-party bureaucratic rule, is helpful. They are very different beasts. Accommodations between them are less an effect of shared values and more an effect of contingency.

      Reply
  11. Mac1 11
    23 March 2025 at 10:30 am

    I took a look at what the internet could tell me about invasions of Russia. The great majority of commentators did not know how many there were, as different comments listed different occasions. Nigel above listed four, though he did say 'for example' so the following remarks do not apply to him.

    What I get from this is the appalling inability of people pronouncing on the internet to actually do some proper research. Opinions based on such knowledge are necessarily weakened.

    Today I read an internet article on Facebook from a supposed reputable source that gave bullshit findings on the pyramids which then allowed even worse comments such as they had nuclear reactors beneath them which powered space ships, or garnered energy from the 'ether'.https://www.facebook.com/AncientExplorers/posts/-a-lost-world-beneath-the-pyramids-beneath-the-ancient-sands-of-giza-a-hidden-la/

    Yesterday I read of the belief that Penelope Keith shot President Kennedy.

    The internet has become a huge liability- lies and misinformation, scams, personal and political attacks abound. At least in my youth such perpetrators were limited by the range of their voices from their street corner soap box.

    By writing this, indeed, my voice has stretched across the world……

    How do we hope if we cannot trust? How do we become informed? Vote wisely? How do we indeed engage in the world?

    Speaking as a 75 year old what kind of a world are we leaving, let alone bequeathing? Climate change, wars and rumours of wars, deliberate misinformation and propaganda at unprecedented levels…… maybe Yeats had it right with his Second Coming.

    Or Dick Gaughan, the Scottish folk singer, echoing the title of this Standard post.

    https://genius.com/Dick-gaughan-the-world-turned-upside-down-lyrics

    Reply
    • Nigel Haworth 11.1
      23 March 2025 at 11:06 am

      Dick Gaughan, like me, echoed the fears and hopes found in the English Revolution. One of Scotland’s finest singers. “Jamie Foyers” is a particular favourite.

      Reply
      • Mac1 11.1.1
        23 March 2025 at 11:41 am

        Agreed, Nigel. I sing "Jamie Foyers", coupled with "Find the Cost of Freedom" by CSN. Also, "Handful of Earth" is a favourite of mine. The Left has the best songs…

        To balance my fears above, I yesterday walked in a Relay For Cancer. One man, a former colleague, raised over $7000 for the cause. Over 500 people turned out, one percent of our provincial population, for the relay walk. Indeed, the 400m track was filled with people four wide for an evening vigil. How many is that? A thousand?

        Anyway, the feeling I had was an immense one of community engagement and of hope from the wide range of folk gathered there. At an individual level, and cancer knows no political, social or age boundaries, I was very heartened.

        At the macro level, though? A reason to be involved in politics and movements.

        The sign we walked past in 3 metre high letters was HOPE.

        Reply
        • Nigel Haworth 11.1.1.1
          23 March 2025 at 12:51 pm

          As I’ve grown older, and seen in many places into what Leninism, in its various forms, descends, the English communitarian tradition – from Morris to Orwell via Thompson – grows in appeal. How to get there is another matter, but it echoes many of your sentiments expressed above.

          Reply
    • PsyclingLeft.Always 11.2
      23 March 2025 at 12:58 pm

      I took a look at what the internet could tell me about invasions of Russia.

      Here some Links. Quite a lot of History to read….

      Invasion of Russia

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Russia

      One little known in particular, I took an interest in many years back..

      Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War

      After the Armistice of 11 November 1918 the Allied plan changed to helping the White forces in the Russian Civil War.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War

      Again an FYI for the hard of understanding, (seemingly I have to put this) I do not support Putin , Xi, Trump et al…

      Reply
    • lprent 11.3
      23 March 2025 at 1:21 pm

      I took a look at what the internet could tell me about invasions of Russia.

      You'd probably have to define it a little more closely. For instance should we include the 1708 Swedish invasion of 'Russia', which was fought mainly in what is now Poland and Belarus and was a result of Russia and allies trying to invade the Swedish empire.

      The subsequent related invasion of 'Russia' by the Ottoman Turks in 1710 which was fought in what is now Moldavia, Hungary, and Crimea. None of which had significiant Russian control or population at the time.

      Or the Continuation War where Finland invaded 'Russia' in 1941-1944 over territory that the Russians had annexed in the Winter War of 1939-1940 and into East Karelia.

      I could probably find something in the order of hundreds of 'invasions of Russia', especially if you include the Kyvian Rus and its successor states with its innumerable conflicts with Byzantium Roman empire, Magyars, Mongols and others

      Reply
      • Nigel Haworth 11.3.1
        23 March 2025 at 1:30 pm

        Well said. A constant interplay of attack and defence, signed and broken treaties, alliances and betrayals, expansion and contraction.

        Reply
    • weka 11.4
      24 March 2025 at 9:23 pm

      Yesterday I read of the belief that Penelope Keith shot President Kennedy.

      that was a joke trap that the likes of Russel Brand fell into. It was intended to show how people are being really stupid (he didn't read the thing he tweeted, or he didn't know who Penelope Keith is, either way the problem is the outrage machine that is social media and people like Brand who use it to make themselves into something).

      Reply

Leave a Comment