That's not going to derail an alliance. This is an emerging Anti-Red China tripartite alliance that appears to be coming together -- US-Japan-India + other nations that can't stand Red China, such as Phillipines, ROK, Vietnam, Australia, Taiwan, an old friend Thailand (though they're not so much anti-China as the others).
The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming
- Thread starter Musburger1
- Start date
They aren't kneejerk, but you always reach the same conclusions. Deny it all you want, but the assumptions are built into every foreign policy argument you make.
You don't say it directly because you know how ridiculous that sounds. It's built into you argument, and you passively say it by how you frame his actions.
I don't think that. I think he is trying to rebuild Russian (and his own personal) influence and power through various means including but not limited to territorial expansion. I don't view the USSR as a good parallel, because I don't think international communism is his agenda.
Neocons may agree with me on this issue (though not in general or broadly on Ukraine), but I'm actually basing it on Putin's own comments. And did you notice that he just he invaded Ukraine?
That's almost the definition of claiming moral equivalence.
Again, we're the real bad guys. Putin's just reacting to our evil.
This is what I mean by you passively suggesting that Putin has good intentions. He isn't an aggressor looking for power. He just "felt he needed to do this." He didn't have a choice. We terrible Americans and Ukrainians drove him to it.
And of course, if Ukraine joining NATO (something that hadn't happened and wasn't likely to happen due to political division) was his big worry, invading was the worst way of showing it. If this invasion ultimately fails, he just cemented the case for Ukraine joining NATO, and if they don't join, he just cemented the case for Ukraine to build a nuclear weapons program at a breakneck speed.
The problem with this is that I have far more disagreement with Irving Kristol than you have with Gore Vidal (at least on foreign policy).
Putin attacked Ukraine. He annexed Crimea. His country orchestrates a massive PED cheating program. He's (Russia) the #1 geopolitical threat in the world (sorry Obama, you really blew that one. So, we don't need to hear your opinion anymore).
It's real simple to me. He's the bad guy and there's no nuance to it.
It's real simple to me. He's the bad guy and there's no nuance to it.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Their doping schemes were laughably dumb.
They were amazingly amateurish. I don't know if they are that dumb or that arrogant.
Interesting psychological angle on UK. What about our reasonably good relationship with Pakistan?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Absolutely incorrect. You are confusing explaining his rationale vs giving him justification. I can understand why he is doing something and at the same time think it is wrong. I think I made comments before the invasion, saying that if he moved troops inside Ukraine then he is in the wrong. He did and therefore he is in the wrong.
It is similar to German starting WW1. There were a variety of factors that led them to attack Belgium to start the war. They made rational decisions. However, they were immoral decisions and Germany started the war.
I agree with those statements. My point is always to point out that he is doing so with a country on his border. Not 1000s of miles away. You and I can say that he is wrong to try to influence or even control neighboring countries. He is. But the wider context is that all large powerful countries do this to some degree.
Well may comment was about reestablishing the borders of the USSR. So I don't think this comment applies to Russia wanting to expand their borders around Ukraine. Obviously in the 30 year post-Soviet context, Putin has stated multiple time what Russia's interests are for Ukraine. Multiple US diplomats, experts, and ambassadors have described Russia-Ukraine or Russia-NATO relations in the same way Putin has over the last few years. The February attack was precipitated by actions and rhetoric from September 2021. Please don't confuse understanding with justification
Even after invading he restated them. I don't think absorbing them is off the table, but that isn't what he has specifically called for. He has said he wants a neutral Ukraine and promise not to put missile launchers in Eastern Europe
Well, to not admit this is to ignore actions that Russia interpreted as belligerent.
Putin’s Fixation With an Old-School U.S. Missile Launcher
Ukraine Launches Military Drills With NATO
Russia is bad in that they were building up troops along their border and running exercises with Belarus. Ukraine and NATO were doing bad by running exercises together in Ukraine. So even though Russia has clearly stated they cannot accept Ukraine in NATO, the two are working together. How isn't that provocative? Of course Russia is doing the same thing. Maybe those are equivalent. But now Russia has attacked Ukraine which is obviously worse. When you make the decision to go kill people the weight is hung around your neck.
You really need to read what George Kenna said. The guy who developed the USSR containment policy in 1945. Several other policy experts have said the same thing over the years as tensions have ratcheted up.
Is it so hard to accept that the US government has done things that are wrong? Are we to implicitly trust them only about foreign policy? I think the US government is corrupt, pursues their own interests at cost to the American people, and incompetent. I think those are proven facts. It doesn't mean they are always wrong or bad in what they do. It does mean that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Does that make me a Putin supporter? He is way worse. He gives no 1st or 2nd amendment type rights to his citizens. He nationalizes big industry for his own benefit. He obviously and brazenly rigs elections. He assassinates political rivals (kind of like the Clinton,
). This is called eisegesis. The proper way to interpret any writing is exegesis. I can state that Putin "felt he needed to do this" and be correct without thinking his intentions are good. Again it is about understanding not justification. You added that Putin didn't have a choice, that is the eisegesis I am talking about. Of course Putin makes the choice and he is responsible for it. We can also understand that the actions of US/NATO/Ukraine played a role. Can't both things be true?
I agree. Putin made an incorrect and an immoral decision. I just want Putin and Zelensky to make agreements that can lead to a stable peace.
Oh yeah?
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
What country in the world has attacked the most countries and toppled the most governments in the last 20 years? Does toppling foreign governments equate to a geopolitical threat?
You can play that game if you want, but your true belief is pretty clear from how you characterize each side of this issue - the ****-talk about the West, the rationalizing of Putin's assumptions, foul deference to his word, etc. You're doing more than "explaining his rationale." The fact that you accept or certainly presume that his stated rationale is his true rationale is pretty revealing.
He has called for more than that. He has demanded a disarmed Ukraine. Hell ******* no. They would be crazy to entertain that.
Again, you treat troop buildup by Russia coupled with a threat to invade (followed by an actual invasion) as equivalent to military exercises. They aren't.
I'm familiar with Kennon's comments and his position.
No, it isn't. However, it's ludicrous to think it has basically done nothing but wrong and presume its wrongness even when it's up against a far more corrupt regime.
They can be true if you actually believe NATO to be a credible threat to make an unprovoked attach on Russia. No serious human (including Putin) thinks that. It's a ******** pretext like the Nazis claiming to be threatened by the Czechs and the Poles.
And like I mentioned before, if he really thinks NATO is such a threat to him, invading is about the dumbest thing he could have done. Why? Because if the invasion fails, the case for Ukraine to join NATO just shot through the roof. To the extent that there was Ukrainian dissent to joining NATO, I doubt there's much anymore. And if it doesn't join NATO, Putin just created the most compelling possible reason for Ukraine to build a nuclear weapons program. If what you naively believe to be Putin's intentions were actually true, he's doing everything he can to undermine them in practice.
Once you launch an invasion and start murdering civilians, the odds of a stable peace become pretty remote.
Uh, yeah, and it's not even close.
Anything to spite India seems to be Pakistan’s motto. Some of this goes beyond my level of historical understanding, but I think that many Muslim rulers in India sided with the British during the British Raj. There’s probably a lot more to it than that. I’m no expert on it.
Agree with much of this. Putin is a real SOB. But in the long game, Red China is the bigger, and badder, adversary.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
True. But, we've handcuffed them to us financially to some degree and it pushes back against their instincts. There was a place to bring Russia into the modern world but they're kleptocracy and instincts taken from being behind the iron curtain curtailed that movement like an oklahoma meth head driving by a vacant house with copper pipes. They couldn't help themselves. To me it was that era when Putin stepped back to not be the President. Xi's lifetime appointment and their south china sea ******** is a real boil in our conjoined ***.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Too bad Kushner's not around to OK it. :|I think some of this just might be against international law…
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Like always you discount what I say and fill in what you imagine I think. This is the problem with the neocon position. It substitutes actual statements with mythologies and propaganda narratives. It is a bit mind blowing that I can communicate with clear words about my stance and you choose to ignore them. It is sad that you treat complicated matters in a white hat, black hat binary kind of way.
That is obviously unreasonable. Ukraine is never going to disarm in any situation. I saw Putin call out to Ukrainians to lay down their arms and leave the country. However, I haven't seen that as a peace negotiation point. I dial it up to misinformation campaign during the war. The consistent stance has been a neutral Ukraine and no missile launchers in Eastern Europe. Not sure that is even possible.
Not equivalent. But including NATO in the exercises was provocative. That was my point. Ukraine has every right to do military exercises. They even have a right to do exercises with NATO if they want, but it was clear how Russia would interpret it.
Okay. Sounds like you don't agree. But his predictions have all come true so maybe he understood the situation.
I don't think you know what Putin thinks, or what many in Russia's right wing think. First, NATO is obviously a credible threat to Russia. Russia doesn't stand a chance against it. Your qualifier is about NATO making an unprovoked attack. I don't necessarily think the NATO will make an unprovoked attack either. But the situation is much more complicated than that. For example, if NATO gets involved in the Ukrainian-Russian war today, it won't be considered unprovoked by anyone. The fact will be that NATO would have felt provoked by what Russia is doing in Ukraine. The other fact is that NATO's proximity to Russia makes a provoked attack on them much more easy and quick. That would be concerning whether a country is planning to be aggressive in a region or not.
Yeah, Putin made a very risky move. All the points you make a valid. But I guess why would he make the decision now? Do you think in his internal calculations the cost of waiting was higher than the cost of acting? In Sept-Oct 2021, there were several predictions that Russia would attack in early 2022 that turned out correct. You think his intention has always been to attack Ukraine and this was his most opportune time? What is his next step in the plan? What are his end goals?
So no chance of negotiation or peace in your mind?
I do agree with Gore Vidal on foreign policy more today than 5 years ago. True. I do consider the US as an empire and think that is a betrayal of the limited government, constitutional founding of the US.
Where exactly do you disagree with Irving Kristol? I don't see him disagreeing with anything the US military has done in the last 20 years, much like you.
I mainly discount subsequent and self-serving characterizations of what you say.
It's misinformation like Hunter Biden's laptop was misinformation. They want demilitarization according to RT. If that's misinformation, it's coming from the Kremlin.
So you honestly think Putin believes that NATO and Ukraine are interested in taking offensive action against Russia?
I don't know for sure what he thinks, but I'm pretty sure of what he doesn't think mainly because his actions make no sense if he actually believes what you seem to think he believes unless he's mentally unstable, which I don't believe him to be.
Mere ability doesn't make something a threat. The intentions and agenda of those controlling that ability make something a credible threat.
That's because it's wouldn't be for the same reason D-Day wasn't an unprovoked attack.
Yes, it would make an unprovoked attack easier just like you having a gun in your house would make murdering your neighbor easier. But you don't have any interest in murdering you neighbor, so you having a gun doesn't make you a threat to your neighbor.
He made the decision now because of how weak the West looked and how much leverage he thought he had. Not only did we give up in Afghanistan, we were an incompetent ****-show in executing the withdrawal. Much of Europe is destroying its domestic energy capacity and then buying Russian oil and gas to make up the difference. He has them by the balls in a profound way - just perhaps not as much as he thought.
Yes.
Next step is either other non-aligned countries that are favorable to the West (Sweden or Finland) or the Baltics. The end goal is a more powerful and more influential Russia.
Not until the troops are out or some big political dynamic in the West changes.
It's more than that. It's an overwhelming judgment and presumption of bad faith and bad intentions on the part of the US that you don't put on other states, even ones that are run by terrible people.
I'm closer to Krisol than to Vidal, but there's a lot of room between them. As for areas where I would disagree, Kristol and the neocons are much more willing to topple regimes and nation-build than I am. They wouldn't hesitate to attack Iran, Syria, Venezuela, or North Korea. I wouldn't attack unless things wildly change in those countries to make them more imminent threats and therefore worth the massive cost in blood and money to topple them productively. They were fine with going in Libya. I never would have gotten into that mess.
Ultimately, the neocon doesn't really understand that liberal democracy presumes and is only compatible with Western values, and that misunderstanding leads to bad decisions and underestimating what it takes to truly build a nation. That's why we could "nation-build" in post-war Europe but effectively could not in the Middle East.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Meaning you have trouble not thinking about it in a binary way. I say things that don't fit into a binary framework. They would mean that I support Putin or give him the benefit of the doubt while I don't for the US. But that ignores the geographical location of the situation, the possibility to both sides have done things to escalate, ignores my overall priority of de-escalation and building of common of interests, and ultimately avoiding nuclear war. It is difficult to communicate a path for those priorities and takes an open mind about how we got to where we are and actions (from either or both sides) to reverse the direction
Not sure what you are saying here but it sounds reasonable. I don't doubt the Kremlin is the source. I'm sure they would like a demilitarized Ukraine. I'm not sure that is a strategic priority in a negotiation. Meaning I don't think if they don't get that, that they will refuse an agreement. If so, there may be no hope for peace.
I think Putin sees NATO as a threat to their sovereignty and influence in the region. Does that mean they expect an imminent attack? I doubt it, but I don't know what they are thinking exactly. But the facts of the matter are that NATO is opposed to Russia and they are moving military capabilities closer and closer to this perceived opponent. I don't think concern is irrational.
So his attack means in your mind that he doesn't want a neutral Ukraine, no missile launchers in Eastern Europe, and NATO to stop moving capabilities towards his country? It means he wants to take over at least some portion of the Soviet republics in order to gain glory from himself? Maybe. I don't see those ideas as independent of one another.
Don't actions communicate intentions and agenda? I know that cuts both ways, which is why I am against Russia's attack. My whole point is a situation has escalated and I want de-escalation. What was Russia's intent when they were going to give nuclear missiles to Castro? Were they planning an attack on the US? I don't know but that is not how I remember it being portrayed. But the act itself was belligerent and escalated the situation.
Bad analogy. If your HOA was formed to make sure you don't hurt anyone in the neighborhood, and continued to give more and more weapons to your neighbors. At what point would you start to get concerned with their actions? I wouldn't shoot one of my neighbors in retaliation, and if I did I would be in the wrong. But they were setting up a cannon aimed at my house, I would consider fighting them to prevent the cannon from being aimed at my house. You could say, as long as I won't attack a neighbor I have no reason to worry about your cannon. But I would still be very afraid of that cannon.
Those are part of the calculation Putin made. Yes. The other part was NATO moving weapons into Eastern Europe and involvement with Ukraine.
I only disagree that he has always planned on attacking Ukraine. I would like more evidence than his wistful comments about the fall of the USSR.
So you think the talk about negotiations is a ruse?
The troops are out of Ukraine? That should be part of the negotiation though. I think that is the point, leverage. Putin would agree to pull troops, etc. for assurance of a neutral Ukraine and no missile launchers in EE. It would be good to at least call the bluff and see if there is a chance.
We discuss the US mostly on this board. I can assure you I judge other states as more evil than the US one, but they don't affect my life and I have no voice in their internal affairs. If a conversation ever starts about how bad country X is, I will have lots to say.
For example China. Way worse. Russia. Way worse. Saudi Arabia. Way worse. Australia. Worse. Canada. Worse. The number of states I give the benefit of the doubt is 0.
If you want an example of you giving Russia the benefit of the doubt, this is it. You're just presuming that Russia doesn't actually expect demilitarization because you know how unreasonable that would make them look and that they're only using it as a bargaining chip. Before the invasion, I could have at least withheld judgment on that point but not after.
Their sovereignty? Really?? How so?
Influence beyond Russia's borders? Sure. A territorially expansionist Russia is threatned by NATO. I wouldn't argue that point. That's sorta the whole purpose of NATO.
I'm sure Hitler truly didn't like that Germans were mistreated in the Sudetenland, but that doesn't mean that was the real reason he annexed it. If they were treating Germans well, he still would have taken it. Likewise, I'm sure Putin wants a Russian-aligned Ukraine (like Belaruss) and doesn't want missile launchers in Eastern Europe, but they're only a useful pretext. If there were no missile launchers in Eastern Europe, he'd still be screwing with Ukraine.
Actions communicate intentions and agenda but not on their own. Who's taking the actions and why? It matters a lot. The Soviet Union placed missiles in Cuba to be able to launch a nuclear strike anywhere in the United States with little or no notice, and of course, ideologically they supported the fall of the United States and the entire capitalist West. That's the big difference.
The West has placed military power in Eastern Europe largely following Russian aggression. Many Eastern European countries joined NATO in the late '90s, but NATO's military capabilities were quite weak for a very long time and very clearly in retreat. European militaries are a fraction of what they were during the Cold War. Until 2014, the US was in a massive military drawdown in Europe. Huge installations were closing left and right, and thousands of troops were sent home. At one point, we didn't have a single tank on the continent. Hell, Russia could have invaded Germany, and there would have been little we could have done to stop them. Then Russia annexed Crimea. That was the game-changer. Forces have been buiding back up, but it was in response to Russian aggression.
If you're just a regular guy, then I understand the frustration. If you're a sex offender who has been telling everybody you want to start feeling up and touching all the little girls in your neighborhood, then they have good reason to point canons at your house. And if you actually feel up a girl in the area and say you'll stop doing it if people will get rid of their guns and take the locks off their doors, I don't think they'll be very receptive.
Again, I think that's a pretext. Putin knows those weapons won't be used without provocation beyond his borders.
You want more evidence besides what he has said in public. Well ****, dude. lol Again, that's a benefit of the doubt you wouldn't give the West.
I'm sure negotiations are happening. I don't think they're going to be fruitful until troops are gone.
Call his bluff? Are you kidding me? He just invaded Ukraine. He just showed that the threat is real. Weakening our defenses in the area or in Ukraine is the last thing we should do.
You'll say the obligatory "they're worse," but in practice, you at least give Russia a hell of a lot of benefit of the doubt. You've done it several times in this discussion. What's weird is that Musburger is far less outwardly friendly to Russia than he was, and you're more so. It's like the Web Brigades fired him and hired you.
Y'all should exchange phone numbers.
I'd end up getting on Russian robocall lists.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Yeah, that really shows how I am pro-Putin. I am trying to understand the situation by applying reason to it. You took several things I said, mixed them together to create a false narrative of what I am trying to communicate. Congratulations.
Sovereignty based on following the logic of Kennan. An excerpt following
You don't have to expand territory to have influence in a geographical region. Now I agree. Russia shouldn't get to dictate to Ukraine or anyone else what their country's policy is. My main concern is starting wars that cost American lives and money.
Yes. But my point is we only know that for sure if we call the bluff. If we agree to pull missile launchers in EE, and Putin still attacks then all bets are off. In that case NATO de-escalated and Russia didn't follow suit. That justifies way more action against them than in the present case. If it is a pretense, I want to have better evidence of that before all hell breaks loose.
You kind of agreed with me. I'll take it.
I fully support European nations building their defense systems up. Every nation needs to be able to protect itself from invasion. They have depended on the US too much in the past.
You give part of the history in the region. I have given another. The story is one of escalation. We can debate who started it, or who wears the white hat or the lighter gray hat. But the point is what we need is de-escalation. For everything the US/NATO has done, the justification is reaction to escalation. For everything Russia has done, the justification is reaction to escalation. Some of it has been cynical or pretense. Some of it has been honest. What I am saying is that the best example the US could give to the world is to show others how to de-escalate. JFK did it during the Cuban missile crisis. We need our politicians to follow that example. It takes intelligence, cleverness, strength, bravery. It also simply takes the desire to de-escalate before WW3 is on us.
This is where we just don't agree. I don't think NATO was planning regime change. My point has always been that is escalates tensions. It does, and that is why I have been against it.
He has never said he has plans to retake the republics that were in the Soviet Union. So you misrepresent what I have said. I have seen various politicians on Twitter calling for regime change in Russia now. Do I think that is what US has always had in mind? No. Oh hey, looks like I gave them the benefit of the doubt too. Watta you know.
So the answer to growing tensions is further escalation of tensions. Continue to ratchet up demands on each side until NATO engages and Russia fires nukes. That is what I want to avoid.
Look at that rhetoric on your part too. "Our" defenses? You are a Ukrainian? Did Russia attack the US? I'm confused. If you identify your interests with Ukraine's interests you should be traveling there to go fight to protect your family. I keep my family safe by limiting the scope of this war and avoiding WW3.
I am talking about Russia and Ukraine negotiating. This isn't the US's fight. This is Ukraine's fight and they need to find a way to make peace with their neighbor and maintain sovereignty.
You continue to ignore what I am clearly communicating and build your viewpoint on insinuations and fairy tales. Eisegesis. It is bad interpretation.
They are worse means they are worse. I also try to understand what other people are saying and take that into account when I form an opinion about them and their stances. Something you don't do. You would much rather slander and smear like all the other neoconservatives out there. That's fine.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
And I would get robocalls from Stacey Abram's PAC, the Equality PAC, and the 1619 Project.
Should I start a Mona/Deez debate thread?I write better than I talk. And texting would be clumsy.
Definitely some scary RINO robocalls dealing with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnel on how they're making America better.
You'd probably get one saying how requiring guns to have liability insurance really isn't fascism.
Don't forget the most popular one- The RINO robocall on why everything wrong today is Trump's fault.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
In hindsight, Zelensky deserves huge props for standing up to Trump's extortion attempts. Remember, Trump inferred that the delay of the Javelins could be tied to Zelensky announcing a Burisma investigation. He stood toe to toe with Trump and didn't blush. Aside from his heroic leadership since the Russian investigation, that was a huge moment of leadership for Z.
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
