/373/ Take a Stand: Be Neutral! ft. Lily Lynch
Added 2023-10-31 08:00:04 +0000 UTCOn NATO expansion and the end of neutrality
[Patreon Exclusive]
Lily Lynch is back on the pod to talk about Northern and Eastern Europe and growing hawkishness. We discuss:
- Why did Sweden and Finland give up decades of neutrality - and why now?
- What happens with an enlarged alliance in light of the conflict in Ukraine?
- How does the current moment compare to the apogee of the Non-Aligned Movement?
- Why were the realists right?
- How is tech mythology helping to build 'digital nationalism'?
- Why is there beef over grain between Poland and Ukraine?
- And what the hell are the "skin suit of social democracy" and the "Waluigi of neutrality"?
Links:
- Joining the West, Lily Lynch, Sidecar
- The realists were right, Lily Lynch, New Statesman
- The EU’s great power delusions, Lily Lynch, New Statesman
- Guns, grain, and history, Lily Lynch, New Statesman
- Tech-Mythologies, Lily Lynch, Sidecar
- Imperfect Unity, Lily Lynch, Sidecar
Comments
The claim that the NAM was CIA backed struck me as very odd: I'd like to see proof. The NAM was itself deeply divided between left and right wing regimes (the latter backed by the US to prevent any postcolonial radicalism); there was in truth no place to hide from the Cold War, precisely because the ideological contestation ran through societies, it was not merely a geopolitical divide; that is why the so-called new Cold War is different - there is no fundamental contest over the organisation of societies as there was with capitalism vs communism. That is why, contrary to what Lily and the Bungaboys suggested, it is more possible today to remain neutral than then (and btw the NAM does still exist! as does the G77). The majority of developing countries have taken neither Russia's side nor NATO's. Similarly, most Southeast Asian states are refusing to side openly with either China or the US. Neutrality "shrivelling away"? Don't be so Eurocentric, guys!
Lee Jones
2023-11-09 19:27:38 +0000 UTCThe non-aligned movement was always a farce, not just because it was tacitly encouraged by the US, as Lily already mentioned, but because none of its member states were willing to lift a finger when one of the others was in trouble. When Nkrumah and Sukarno were overthrown the military got away scot free, and India was not even supported with words the various times that it was attacked by Pakistan because inter-Muslim solidarity trumped any kind of officially established diplomacy.
Blake
2023-11-08 10:13:51 +0000 UTCA disturbing account, I think, given rising tensions in multiple regions. Neutrality never sounded so lovely. I agree with Eli that it would be very interesting to dialogue between ideological and material accounts of what's driving sovereignty out as polarization digs in.
Richard R
2023-11-07 01:27:06 +0000 UTC
