And what are the fundamental causes of the war that Putin demands discussed? What is never discussed in Europe: The background: The expansion of Nato since the collapse of the Soviet Union in which Ukraine constitutes the latest piece. In continuation thereof: The concrete context: The CIA-Kiev coup in 2014.
Thank you Glenn and thank you to Prof. Postol. Great one Glenn!
you wrote " Prof. Postol will soon travel to Europe to give lectures warning about dangerous nuclear developments, and this is one of those lectures." That is great! Can we know where and when these lectures will take place. Could it be possible too to have the script of this one? Thank you!
The arms race is in motion. It usually ends in war either through a relatively trivial incident (WW1) or an accident eg mistaken enemy attack (such as false nuclear alerts). Most probable is one side feeling an existential threat, rightly or wrongly, and going for a pre-emptive response. The US military has always had hawks who believe they can defeat Russia with a such a first strike - they were there during the Cuba crisis which made Kennedy's desire for a peaceful solution much harder - Kruschev obviously agreed to make it look as though the USSR had backed down, which may have helped cost him his job in favour of hard man Kosygin. Both sides now state they are prepared to make a first strike, so it is important to have enough for a response - hence the overkill of nuclear forces, and enormous danger. There is clearly a collective hysteria among Western leaders, putting the world on a hair trigger. I am sick and tired of hearing military leaders with posh public school accents cheerfully talking up more 'defence' which of course is seen as potential aggression by Russia.
The Unseen Costs of NATO's Expansion: A Call for Reflection
In recent years, NATO's expansion has been a topic of intense debate. While proponents argue it's a necessary step for collective security, it's crucial to examine the broader implications of this growth.
Economic Strain on Member Nations
NATO's expansion requires significant financial commitments from member countries. Increased defense spending often means diverting funds from essential public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This reallocation can lead to economic strain, particularly for nations already facing budgetary constraints.
Escalation of Global Tensions
As NATO extends its reach, it can be perceived as a threat by non-member countries, potentially escalating global tensions. This expansion may provoke an arms race, with nations increasing their military capabilities in response, thereby reducing global stability.
Erosion of National Sovereignty
Member countries may find their foreign policies increasingly influenced by NATO's strategic objectives, potentially compromising their national sovereignty. This alignment can lead to involvement in conflicts that do not directly serve their national interests.
Questioning the Democratic Process
The decision to join NATO is monumental, yet in some cases, it occurs without comprehensive public debate or referendums. This lack of public engagement raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of such decisions.
Conclusion
While NATO's mission to ensure collective security is understandable, it's imperative to critically assess the broader consequences of its expansion. A balanced approach that considers economic, political, and social factors is essential for sustainable global peace and stability.
Right, heavy armament will of course mean heavy cuts in public service, education, health to balance the public budget.
And no public debate. Of course not. The media has censored criticism and this way silenced and made debate impossible. Glenn Diesen knows all about it.
Glenn should be Norway PM
And what are the fundamental causes of the war that Putin demands discussed? What is never discussed in Europe: The background: The expansion of Nato since the collapse of the Soviet Union in which Ukraine constitutes the latest piece. In continuation thereof: The concrete context: The CIA-Kiev coup in 2014.
Russian demands, not "Putin".
Its not as if the entire Russia wants to be under NATO's thumb but "Putin" is stopping them from doing it.
The constant ranting about "Putin" by the US and EU is designed to turn serious issues into a cartoon show.
Thank you Glenn and thank you to Prof. Postol. Great one Glenn!
you wrote " Prof. Postol will soon travel to Europe to give lectures warning about dangerous nuclear developments, and this is one of those lectures." That is great! Can we know where and when these lectures will take place. Could it be possible too to have the script of this one? Thank you!
The arms race is in motion. It usually ends in war either through a relatively trivial incident (WW1) or an accident eg mistaken enemy attack (such as false nuclear alerts). Most probable is one side feeling an existential threat, rightly or wrongly, and going for a pre-emptive response. The US military has always had hawks who believe they can defeat Russia with a such a first strike - they were there during the Cuba crisis which made Kennedy's desire for a peaceful solution much harder - Kruschev obviously agreed to make it look as though the USSR had backed down, which may have helped cost him his job in favour of hard man Kosygin. Both sides now state they are prepared to make a first strike, so it is important to have enough for a response - hence the overkill of nuclear forces, and enormous danger. There is clearly a collective hysteria among Western leaders, putting the world on a hair trigger. I am sick and tired of hearing military leaders with posh public school accents cheerfully talking up more 'defence' which of course is seen as potential aggression by Russia.
The Unseen Costs of NATO's Expansion: A Call for Reflection
In recent years, NATO's expansion has been a topic of intense debate. While proponents argue it's a necessary step for collective security, it's crucial to examine the broader implications of this growth.
Economic Strain on Member Nations
NATO's expansion requires significant financial commitments from member countries. Increased defense spending often means diverting funds from essential public services like healthcare, education, and infrastructure. This reallocation can lead to economic strain, particularly for nations already facing budgetary constraints.
Escalation of Global Tensions
As NATO extends its reach, it can be perceived as a threat by non-member countries, potentially escalating global tensions. This expansion may provoke an arms race, with nations increasing their military capabilities in response, thereby reducing global stability.
Erosion of National Sovereignty
Member countries may find their foreign policies increasingly influenced by NATO's strategic objectives, potentially compromising their national sovereignty. This alignment can lead to involvement in conflicts that do not directly serve their national interests.
Questioning the Democratic Process
The decision to join NATO is monumental, yet in some cases, it occurs without comprehensive public debate or referendums. This lack of public engagement raises concerns about the democratic legitimacy of such decisions.
Conclusion
While NATO's mission to ensure collective security is understandable, it's imperative to critically assess the broader consequences of its expansion. A balanced approach that considers economic, political, and social factors is essential for sustainable global peace and stability.
James Leon Sinker
Right, heavy armament will of course mean heavy cuts in public service, education, health to balance the public budget.
And no public debate. Of course not. The media has censored criticism and this way silenced and made debate impossible. Glenn Diesen knows all about it.