Cold War II. Russia to play next

[caveman1917]

Gving the way you hand wave away all evidence the Putin is engaged in aggresion in the Ukraine.....

Nonsense, if you have to make stuff up to make an argument then you should reconsider. I think I even provided evidence (or rather stated it, didn't link to it) of Russian military support in this thread. That doesn't mean that all the "evidence" that gets used holds up to standards, far from it. Furthermore, West-Ukraine (or rather the factions that took over the govt buildings in West-Ukraine) attacked East-Ukraine, not the other way around - if you're looking for military aggression you can easily find it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Are you saying it's NATO's fault that events in the Ukraine precipitated the current crisis?

He's clearly not. But you can't talk about the situation in Ukraine without talking about the broader strategic context. It's really becomes quite pointless trying to discuss complex geopolitics with people who reduce the discussion down to childishly simplistic notions of "good guy v. bad guy", and who resort to labelling anyone taking a more nuanced viewpoint as fifth-columnist apologist. It really is tiresome. Especially when speaking with people from America, the "good guys" who have committed acts of aggression over the previous two decades that are that are orders of magnitude greater than anything Russia has done in the same period.

 

[tyr_13]

Preaching to the converted with me, mate. My distaste for US hegemony and military tactics is well known and I do enjoy the irony of Russia's invasion of Ukraine being seen as "pure evil' while America's aren't.

Or you could criticize both on their own merits with nuances that avoid false equivalencies.

That is not what magellan or caveman1917 are doing though. Broadly, their position is the US has been almost completely wrong in everything (after 1945) foreign policy while being silent or much more often defending the actions of Russia (or indeed whoever is 'against the US at the moment) as at least understandable if not outright just.

He's clearly not. But you can't talk about the situation in Ukraine without talking about the broader strategic context. It's really becomes quite pointless trying to discuss complex geopolitics with people who reduce the discussion down to childishly simplistic notions of "good guy v. bad guy", and who resort to labelling anyone taking a more nuanced viewpoint as fifth-columnist apologist. It really is tiresome. Especially when speaking with people from America, the "good guys" who have committed acts of aggression over the previous two decades that are that are orders of magnitude greater than anything Russia has done in the same period.

As above though, that nuance is missing from far too many attacking the US and defending Russia.

 

[caveman1917]

Or you could criticize both on their own merits with nuances that avoid false equivalencies.

Don't worry, I'm not making any equivalencies here at all, NATO is much more wrong than Russia on this one. I mean, open modern Nazi occupation? You guys never even pushed it that far during those golden years in Latin America.

 

[bit_pattern]

As above though, that nuance is missing from far too many attacking the US and defending Russia.

This is part of the problem though, simply taking a position contrary to the American party line is seen as "defending" Russia and/or Putin. For instance, even you in the part of you post you refer me to equivocate 'understanding' with 'defending' - I think it is perfectly acceptable, even desirable, to seek to understand what makes Russia act the way that it does. I think that Russian aggression towards Ukraine is a really big problem, but I also understand that the aggression is arising in the broader strategic context whereby NATO is aggressively expanding to the borders of Russia which, quite understandably, is seen as a threat in Moscow. I don't like the great game, but I do understand it (superficially, at least, for the the rhetorical purposes of the argument I am making). That doesn't mean I am defending Russia. I don't think there is much about the great game that is defensible, but then again I also understand that nation-states don't act in the same sphere of morals that individuals and societies act. So I can make an explanatory case as to why Russia acts the way it acts, and contrast that against the way America acts (especially as a way to contrast the intellectual vacuousness of those who portray America as a moral actor) without defending it. And from my reading of the thread, people like caveman aren't doing anything more than that.

 

[The Atheist]

Or you could criticize both on their own merits with nuances that avoid false equivalencies.

I am and do.

I don't think either side could be described as "better" than the other, although it's factual that USA has invaded many more countries than Russia.

 

[tyr_13]

This is part of the problem though, simply taking a position contrary to the American party line is seen as "defending" Russia and/or Putin. For instance, even you in the part of you post you refer me to equivocate 'understanding' with 'defending'

No I didn't. You're not responding to what I said after your first sentence.

I am and do.

Yes, but the person you were responding to doesn't.

I don't think either side could be described as "better" than the other, although it's factual that USA has invaded many more countries than Russia.

And? It's factual that Russia is far less politically representative of it's people than the US. It's a fact that Samsung keyboard keeps crashing. But what does that mean here?

 

[caveman1917]

This is part of the problem though, simply taking a position contrary to the American party line is seen as "defending" Russia and/or Putin.

I think it's a basic lack of class consciousness, leaving only the "either one nation-state or another" mode of analysis. Rather than, say, "the working class - Russian and Ukrainian - should knock those fascists of those streets and those oligarchs out of the country".

 

[caveman1917]

It's factual that Russia is far less politically representative of it's people than the US.

Evidence? Compare Putin's approval rating with Obama's perhaps? Be more careful about claiming what is "factual"?

 

[tyr_13]

Evidence? Compare Putin's approval rating with Obama's perhaps? Be more careful about claiming what is "factual"?

Metric? How about murdered political dissidents and reporters?

Whatever, my point still stands. What does that have to do with the current situation?

 

[bit_pattern]

No I didn't. You're not responding to what I said after your first sentence.

Oh, well that settles it then, you can just hand wave it all away

And? It's factual that Russia is far less politically representative of it's people than the US. It's a fact that Samsung keyboard keeps crashing. But what does that mean here?

This is a thread about a supposed renewal of Cold War tensions. In a war there are two sides, it is perfectly acceptable to contrast Russian aggression with American aggression. It's also kind of fun to watch the righteous indignation from the true believers when the dissonance of their "good guy v. bad guy" framing is examined through a lens other than that of American exceptionalism.

 

[tyr_13]

Oh, well that settles it then, you can just hand wave it all away

Don't know what to tell you. I simple didn't refer to you to equivocate 'understanding' with 'defending'. That's in no way a hand wave.

This is a thread about a supposed renewal of Cold War tensions. In a war there are two sides, it is perfectly acceptable to contrast Russian aggression with American aggression. It's also kind of fun to watch the righteous indignation from the true believers when the dissonance of their "good guy v. bad guy" framing is examined through a lens other than that of American exceptionalism.

These sentences are in contradiction to one another. You're against a 'good guy v. bad guy' framing...but it's alright to point out that the US has (officially) invaded more countries because it's comparing Russian and American aggression. But how is that relevant besides an unnuanced 'score' of who has done more wrong through a very weird metric*? It would be aggression against each other or what these patterns tell us about how and when these countries use force that would matter. The simple number? No, that doesn't build understanding or nuance. At best it's poking at the reflexive stupid pro-American arguments.

Don't blame me if I point out reflexive stupid anti-American arguments.

EDIT: *Made all the more weird because this 'Russia' has existed for what, thirty years?

 

[bit_pattern]

These sentences are in contradiction to one another.

No they're not. There is no better way of highlighting the vacuousness of adopting a "good guy v. bad guy" position than by providing examples of the supposed "good guy" being much worse than the "bad" guy. It is a useful rhetorical device for exposing the simplistic nature of the framing.

Don't blame me if I point out reflexive stupid anti-American arguments.

I haven't.

EDIT: *Made all the more weird because this 'Russia' has existed for what, thirty years?

A. I've never used it as a "metric"

B. The people we have been arguing with, before the relevance police arrived on the beat, have already established a continuity of behaviour from Tsarist Russia, to the USSR, to modern day Putin's Russia. That is the position against which we have been framing our own arguments. Maybe go back and read the thread first next time?

 

[caveman1917]

Metric? How about murdered political dissidents and reporters?

How is that a better metric for "representative of its people" over approval rating?

What does that have to do with the current situation?

Nothing, not sure why you brought it up. If you mean invading more countries (and it's not just more countries; it's also about the devastation, 1 person killed for Crimea vs how many for Iraq etc; and the wide popularity of those events to the Crimean people vs Iraq etc), it's simply called "double standards".

 

[tyr_13]

No they're not. There is no better way of highlighting the vacuousness of adopting a "good guy v. bad guy" position than by providing examples of the supposed "good guy" being much worse than the "bad" guy. It is a useful rhetorical device for exposing the simplistic nature of the framing.

It would be. Who was framing it that way again?

I haven't.

That's exactly what you did when I pointed out the reflexive defense of Russia/attack of the US megellan traditionally engages in, although it appears you thought I was referring to you when I said that?

A. I've never used it as a "metric"

No, The Atheist did and that's who I quoted in the part of my post you replied to.

B. The people we have been arguing with, before the relevance police arrived on the beat, have already established a continuity of behaviour from Tsarist Russia, to the USSR, to modern day Putin's Russia. That is the position against which we have been framing our own arguments. Maybe go back and read the thread first next time?

I have. And? As far as geopolitical motivations go that's a useful framing. That won't stop me from pointing out that another flaw in the 'good guy v bad guy' score-keeping would be changing political structures.

For someone who dislikes the unnuanced 'us vs them' arguments you sure have a hard time reading my comments in any other light by refusing the nuance I do put in...

 

[caveman1917]

It is a useful rhetorical device for exposing the simplistic nature of the framing.

If you want a nice example of framing, in one of the Vice News "Russian Roulette" episodes there was a military assault on Sloviansk and, as in Mariupol, a bunch of people had come out to try and stop it. As ground-attack jets start flying low overhead and tanks rolling in the journalist asks a couple whether they are "Pro-Russian" then. The couple looks at eachother, obviously not sure what to respond, and then say something like "yeah, never really thought about it but I guess, if you want to put it that way, that we are Pro-Russian yes". Going out on a limb and saying that you need a pretty strong motivation to go out and try to stop an armoured assault with your bare hands, "Pro-Russian sentiment" clearly wasn't it. Yet the journalist just went on about the "Pro-Russians".

 

[The Atheist]

Interesting piece on the subject from Spiegel, which being German, has a slightly vested interest:

http://www.spiegel.de/international...s-race-in-europe-versus-russia-a-1039724.html

 

[bit_pattern]

It would be. Who was framing it that way again?

The people to whom I have levelled the argument against throughout the thread, naturally.

That's exactly what you did when I pointed out the reflexive defense of Russia/attack of the US megellan traditionally engages in, although it appears you thought I was referring to you when I said that?

Maybe "blame" means something different to you? I was explaining why I don't think that anyone is "defending" Russia by using my own logic as an example why. But considering you dismissively hand waved that away without giving it any countenance I am unsurprised that you evidently didn't read it and concluded I was trying to "blame" you for something.

No, The Atheist did and that's who I quoted in the part of my post you replied to.

Um. No, that is definitely me you quoted there.

I have. And? As far as geopolitical motivations go that's a useful framing. That won't stop me from pointing out that another flaw in the 'good guy v bad guy' score-keeping would be changing political structures.

For someone who dislikes the unnuanced 'us vs them' arguments you sure have a hard time reading my comments in any other light by refusing the nuance I do put in...

I would remind you again of the thread topic - Cold War II - your point would be a good argument against the contention of the OP, certainly. However, the remark I originally made in the thread is that while political ideologies shift, geostrategic realities remain pretty fixed. Whether you're a Tsarist general, a Soviet commissar, or a capitalist oligarch - when playing the great game I contend that you are going to run up against the same broad strategic problems. Which goes much further towards explaining the continuity that some participants of the thread have noted, certainly a lot further than the simplistic notions of national character - which is the type of attitudes I have sought to counter. As such, I don't accept the argument that changing political structures really have a *huge* amount of bearing on a strategic level - certainly they do at a tactical level, but that's another argument. I would also point out, that if you go back and read my comments, the only "score-keeping" I've engaged in has explicitly defined the period for comparison as encompassing the previous two decades - so your point really is moot.

 

[tyr_13]

The people to whom I have levelled the argument against throughout the thread, naturally.

Maybe "blame" means something different to you?

Blame, criticize, speak against. What do you think 'blame' means in the context I used it in?

I was explaining why I don't think that anyone is "defending" Russia by using my own logic as an example why.

Yeah, I know you didn't think anyone was defending Russia. That's why I pointed out that some are. For some odd reason you're taking criticisms of those kinds of arguments as criticisms of yours.

But considering you dismissively hand waved that away without giving it any countenance I am unsurprised that you evidently didn't read it and concluded I was trying to "blame" you for something.

You're still on about that? Quote me where I equated you 'understanding' with 'defending'.

Your part about caveman? I disagree. He's defending Russia, but mostly just attacking the US. Just asserting that it's about 'understanding' doesn't make it so. I read it the first time but didn't think it was important enough to address because it would be negated after you reread what I actually said and saw that I wasn't accusing you of simply defending Russia and attacking the US. Evidently you aren't reading what I wrote and are just going with what you think I wrote.

Um. No, that is definitely me you quoted there.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1228&pictureid=9913[/qimg]

Yup, as I said, you're not reading what I actually wrote. I quoted The Atheist in the part of my post you responded to. Care to scroll up and look? It was definitely not you who posted the fact that the US has invaded more countries than the US.

I would remind you again of the thread topic - Cold War II - your point would be a good argument against the contention of the OP, certainly. However, the remark I originally made in the thread is that while political ideologies shift, geostrategic realities remain pretty fixed. Whether you're a Tsarist general, a Soviet commissar, or a capitalist oligarch - when playing the great game I contend that you are going to run up against the same broad strategic problems. Which goes much further towards explaining the continuity that some participants of the thread have noted, certainly a lot further than the simplistic notions of national character - which is the type of attitudes I have sought to counter. As such, I don't accept the argument that changing political structures really have a *huge* amount of bearing on a strategic level - certainly they do at a tactical level, but that's another argument. I would also point out, that if you go back and read my comments, the only "score-keeping" I've engaged in has explicitly defined the period for comparison as encompassing the previous two decades - so your point really is moot.

Man, you can't even let me agree with you.

 

[bit_pattern]

Blame, criticize, speak against. What do you think 'blame' means in the context I used it in?

All of those words mean different things. I don't think 'blame' is in any way synonymous with 'criticise' - and I don't think my response was doing either of those things anyway.

Yeah, I know you didn't think anyone was defending Russia. That's why I pointed out that some are. For some odd reason you're taking criticisms of those kinds of arguments as criticisms of yours.



You're still on about that? Quote me where I equated you 'understanding' with 'defending'.

Your part about caveman? I disagree. He's defending Russia, but mostly just attacking the US. Just asserting that it's about 'understanding' doesn't make it so. I read it the first time but didn't think it was important enough to address because it would be negated after you reread what I actually said and saw that I wasn't accusing you of simply defending Russia and attacking the US. Evidently you aren't reading what I wrote and are just going with what you think I wrote.

You're right, "just asserting" something doesn't make it true, but that's not what I was doing. I provided a clear rationale for my position based on the logic behind my way of thinking, which I don't think differs that much from Caveman's. Or The Atheists. Or any of the other non-Americans in the thread. I still don't really get this tendency to frame any discussion that incorporates a broader context as attacking/defending either of the great powers. I can't speak for caveman, but from what I have read in this thread he seems to share a disdain common to the non-Americans involved in the discussion for the double-standard assumptions that are implicit in many of the arguments being put forward. I understand - and have expressed - the frustration with being labelled "fifth-column" Russian supporters for simply adopting a position that doesn't automatically accept the assumptions shared by a particular clique.

Yup, as I said, you're not reading what I actually wrote.

Yeah, either that or you're not being clear enough of your meaning.

Man, you can't even let me agree with you.

Again, it might be a result of the clarity of what you are writing, but I don't think you are agreeing with me (and nor should you, what fun would that be?) when you argue that: a). the contextualising of Russia's power projecting by comparing and contrasting with that of America is 'score keeping; or, b). that the comparison is flawed because of changing political structures. I posed two arguments why the latter is the case: 1). the geostrategic realities (a premise with which you tangentially agree); and, 2). the fact that I had anticipated your particular line of argument previously in the thread and quite deliberately framed my comparison within the period within which modern Russia had emerged.

Instead of engaging with either of those points though, you instead chose to evade the point by throwing up your arms and claiming your were agreeing with me. Which doesn't make for interesting or robust discussion. Indeed, it's this tendency to simply dismiss thoughtful comments that I have put effort and care into crafting, rather than actually engaging with the points being made, that has resulted in the sense of antagonism in our relationship in this thread.