Cold War II. Russia to play next

[Andy_Ross]

We know what Russia is pulling. Putin wants the USSR back. He is doing exactly what Germany did in the 30s but this time there is a forewarned and armed opposition willing to stand up to it.

 

[tyr_13]

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.

You don't include 'find fault with' as one definition of blame? That's odd.

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 don't think it differs much from The Atheists and I do think it differs from Caveman's. There is a difference between looking at the larger context and trying to understand both sides, and using tu quoque to defend Russia and attack the US.

Caveman1917's posts might get misrepresented in a lot of ways, but I don't think he'll say he isn't defending Russia. He has quite clearly said it's better than NATO and is not at fault in any meaningful way for anything in the Ukraine. This is where the 'just asserting' comes in. You are just asserting that he's not defending Russia.

Besides that, I don't view aggressive NATO expansion as an actual threat to Russia. What it deprives Russia of is military options for continuing or expanding their influence. I don't view taking military options out of play as the same as using them to keep them in play. Saying both are just part of the 'the game' is a false equivalency.

There are other more valid ways for Russia to renew it's retracting influence, but those involve the now powerful in Russia have comparatively less power than they do now, so those aren't likely to happen. That's worth criticism.

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.

Who labelled you a 'fifth-column' Russia supporter? Why do you keep repeating 'non-American'? Some strange appeal to authority? It seems you're putting all those critical of those being critical of the US in the same 'clique'. I haven't framed all the discussions that incorporates broader context as either attacking or defending, but some of them are. Just as not every reference to Hitler or the Nazis is a godwin, not every criticism of the US or NATO is defending Russia. But some do/are and we even have a handy example of both in one post!

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

Sorry that the multiquote function confuses you. I'll try to refrain from using it when quoting your posts.

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;

Here is the disagreement. Saying that 'the US has invaded more countries than Russia' isn't useful for applying context to Russia's recent influence panic. Why and how those invasions were/are done would be. The number alone? Score keeping. Bending over backwards to make all criticisms of the US useful in the discussion doesn't make for a productive argument, and doesn't advance the appearance of a nuanced and well thought worldview.

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.

I don't know what you want from me there. Do you want a number on my level of agreement? Should I express my agreement more verbosely? Should I go through and pick out each thing I agree with? Make a poem?

I dismissed your comment before because it was built on a misunderstanding of what I was saying. I assumed you'd want to re-state things after seeing that.

Honest question; is English not your first language? I can try to remember to use more exacting wording if that is the case.

 

[caveman1917]

We know what Russia is pulling. Putin wants the USSR back. He is doing exactly what Germany did in the 30s but this time there is a forewarned and armed opposition willing to stand up to it.

You should write government posters

 

[Childlike Empress]

We know what Russia is pulling. Putin wants the USSR back. He is doing exactly what Germany did in the 30s but this time there is a forewarned and armed opposition willing to stand up to it.

Speak for yourself, soldier. You don't know that. It's what you were told. And it's hogwash. Ever stopped for a second and realized that the propaganda you bought is equating what a comparatively tiny, densely populated country with next to no natural resources did, with something the largest country on the planet with almost indefinite natural resources allegedly intends to do?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Putin intends to take back the countries that split away from the old USSR. I haven't seen any evidence yet that he intends otherwise.
Those states that did manage to wrest themselves from Russian control know this stha't why those in Europe were so eager to join NATO.
It's too late for Ukraine I am afraid.

 

[caveman1917]

Caveman1917's posts might get misrepresented in a lot of ways, but I don't think he'll say he isn't defending Russia.

Except for all those times I've said exactly that in the Ukraine thread.

He has quite clearly said it's better than NATO and is not at fault in any meaningful way for anything in the Ukraine.

Here's who I think is very meaningfully at fault for things in Ukraine: whoever it was who thought it would be a splendid idea to throw armed Nazis at a civilian population while shouting from behind "Don't worry, it's all for democracy!" - and all that for their "crime" of voting for self-rule. I seriously hope that guy is guided towards a more suitable job. Stand-up comedy for instance.

This could've worked you know. The Crimeans back with Russia, like they wanted. The people in West-Ukraine closer to the EU, like they wanted. The people in East-Ukraine doing their own thing a bit, like they wanted. All seemed fair enough, given the circumstances. The military was even fine with it, as by their refusal to attack those in the East. But no. Just had to go and throw the Nazis at them.

This is where the 'just asserting' comes in. You are just asserting that he's not defending Russia.

You're confusing "comprehending" with "asserting". I'll defend the people in East-Ukraine, even if you can't grasp an argument outside of the "good guy vs bad guy" thing you got going with Russia.

 

[caveman1917]

Speak for yourself, soldier. You don't know that. It's what you were told. And it's hogwash. Ever stopped for a second and realized that the propaganda you bought is equating what a comparatively tiny, densely populated country with next to no natural resources did, with something the largest country on the planet with almost indefinite natural resources allegedly intends to do?

And all that stuff about doing exactly what Germany did in the '30s, it's not like it's particularly hard to find which side the Nazis are fighting on here.

 

[Border Reiver]

Besides that, I don't view aggressive NATO expansion as an actual threat to Russia.

Honest question - how can NATO's expansion be 'aggressive' when NATO is a voluntary association of states?

Is NATO actively recruiting, or is it simply evaluating new applicants seeking membership against membership criteria and deciding who to let in?

 

[tyr_13]

Except for all those times I've said exactly that in the Ukraine thread.



Here's who I think is very meaningfully at fault for things in Ukraine: whoever it was who thought it would be a splendid idea to throw armed Nazis at a civilian population while shouting from behind "Don't worry, it's all for democracy!" - and all that for their "crime" of voting for self-rule. I seriously hope that guy is guided towards a more suitable job. Stand-up comedy for instance.

This could've worked you know. The Crimeans back with Russia, like they wanted. The people in West-Ukraine closer to the EU, like they wanted. The people in East-Ukraine doing their own thing a bit, like they wanted. All seemed fair enough, given the circumstances. The military was even fine with it, as by their refusal to attack those in the East. But no. Just had to go and throw the Nazis at them.



You're confusing "comprehending" with "asserting". I'll defend the people in East-Ukraine, even if you can't grasp an argument outside of the "good guy vs bad guy" thing you got going with Russia.

You're not defending Russia, but they've done nothing wrong...

You might feel justified in defending Russia, your defending Russia might even be incidental to 'defending East Ukraine' or 'attacking whoever Nazi somethingorother', but that doesn't actually change that it's a defense of Russia and it's actions here.

That's a nice attempt at a personal attack, but I'm while I am a comedian, I'm not a stand-up comedian. And yes, I noticed your attempt at tangentially linking me to pro-Nazi people too. It's a thing of beauty.

Also, repeating the accusation that I've got a 'good guy vs bad guy' thing going on with Russia doesn't make it so. They're doing bad things right now that I'll call out, just like I've done before when the US does bad things, or Britain, or whoever. So far the only evidence that I've been doing that is that I've been critical of Russia.

 

[tyr_13]

Honest question - how can NATO's expansion be 'aggressive' when NATO is a voluntary association of states?

Is NATO actively recruiting, or is it simply evaluating new applicants seeking membership against membership criteria and deciding who to let in?

That's a fair point, but I understood 'aggressive' as in 'aggressive sales pitch'. I do not agree with the spin that seeking new members is 'aggression' or equivalent to Russia trying to keep influence through military options open to them.

 

[caveman1917]

You might feel justified in defending Russia, your defending Russia might even be incidental to 'defending East Ukraine' or 'attacking whoever Nazi somethingorother', but that doesn't actually change that it's a defense of Russia and it's actions here.

No, that is your interpretation, I'm defending actions that are in line with the will of the local population and criticizing actions that are opposed to it.

I don't care how that all works out in that "NATO vs Russia" thing you got going, other then that if it so bothers you that, in your opinion, it amounts to a "defense of Russia" then maybe you should be calling for NATO to do some more defensible actions there. Taking out those Nazis, for instance.

That's a nice attempt at a personal attack, but I'm while I am a comedian, I'm not a stand-up comedian. And yes, I noticed your attempt at tangentially linking me to pro-Nazi people too.

Ridiculous, if you're going to take a criticism of a hypothetical NATO employee as a personal attack then I don't know what to say.

So far the only evidence that I've been doing that is that I've been critical of Russia.

No, the evidence is that you're equating criticism of actions of NATO (and particularly the US) with "defending Russia".

 

[caveman1917]

Bending over backwards to make all criticisms of the US useful in the discussion doesn't make for a productive argument, and doesn't advance the appearance of a nuanced and well thought worldview.

I think it does. If I were Europe it would lead me to conclude something like saying to the US that it should just shut up already and go stand in the corner while we deal with the Russians in a reasonable fashion, and it better have some damn good explanation ready for those Nazis.

I think you're just missing the point where a tu quoque becomes patently ridiculous hypocrisy. It may have been with Kerry arguing "You just don't in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pre-text".

 

[uke2se]

I see the Putinists are still trying to push the lie that Nazis have taken over in the Ukraine. I guess that's what happens when your only sources of information are Russian controlled media.

 

[caveman1917]

I see the Putinists are still trying to push the lie that Nazis have taken over in the Ukraine.

You do know that nobody falls for that trick where you substitute "occupy parts of East-Ukraine and involved in military campaigns against a civilian population" for "taken over Ukraine"?

I guess that's what happens when your only sources of information are Russian controlled media.

Nobody falls for that trick either.

 

[Andy_Ross]

How does the Ukrainian army occupy parts of it's own country? Your logic is flawed somewhere. They are doing what any govt would do if a bunch of separatists declared they were setting up their own govt.

How do you think any other government would react?

 

[uke2se]

You do know that nobody falls for that trick where you substitute "occupy parts of East-Ukraine and involved in military campaigns against a civilian population" for "taken over Ukraine"?

Ah, so it's Nazis that occypy the Eastern Ukraine. I could have sworn they were only pro-Russian nationalists, but if you say they're Nazis, I'll believe you.

Nobody falls for that trick either.

It's not a trick. It's a genuine belief.

 

[caveman1917]

How does the Ukrainian army occupy parts of it's own country?

You mean how do the armed wings of the political factions which took over the Ukrainian government buildings in the West of the country occupy a city in the East of the country?

Your logic is flawed somewhere.

Not really.

How do you think any other government would react?

What government? You mean the people who occupied the government buildings in the West? Either way, the last government I know that openly deployed such forces was Germany in 1945.

 

[caveman1917]

It's not a trick. It's a genuine belief.

Sure. And you know what? If it was actually a case of people using Russian media as sources then it may even have been a belief backed by some evidence. But yeah, who cares about such details, right?

 

[Andy_Ross]

You mean how do the armed wings of the political factions which took over the Ukrainian government buildings in the West of the country occupy a city in the East of the country?



Not really.



What government? You mean the people who occupied the government buildings in the West? Either way, the last government I know that openly deployed such forces was Germany in 1945.

They are recognized internationally as the govt of the country. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they aren't the legitimate government of the country. The gangs trying to seize areas in the east on behalf of Russia are the ones doing the occupying.

 

[uke2se]

You mean how do the armed wings of the political factions which took over the Ukrainian government buildings in the West of the country occupy a city in the East of the country?

No, he really means how do the legitimate armed forces acting on orders from a democratically elected government occupy their own country?

Not really.

You are right. There is no logic in your posts.

What government?

The democratically elected one of Ukraine.