Trump was going to cry voter fraud if he lost. This was predictable to anyone with a brain, years before it happened. Then it happens, the cases get laughed out of court, there’s no evidence for any of the wild claims, and the Trump cult is … still convinced Trump won, three years later.

Then they lecture people on how brainwashed they are. Without a shred of self-awareness.

Second amendment advocators mostly just function like religious evangelists, disregarding every sound argument and actual evidence in favor of made up scenarios for when to use the weapons as why they're needed, all while the actual use of these weapons are rather killing American citizens like a nationwide corpse factory. — Christoffer

:up: :up:

I've corrected what you seemed to think was a study about the relationship between gun ownership and homicides. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It was a study about gun ownership and homicides, so there’s nothing to correct. True, it doesn’t account for stabbings and defenestration. But your own weird interests doesn’t change the obvious.

That makes perfect sense to me. Things can be related without showing a strong relationship on a plot. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I already mentioned the general homicide rate has declined. That should give you pause about the relevance of the point you’re making — on a gun control thread.

How is: "does a greater share of households owning firearms lead to more homicides?" irrelevant to the gun control debate? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Because you can kill people in all kinds of ways. If you take away guns completely, the overall number of deaths would likely change (even though motivated individuals could, theoretically, choose another method). Fine. Who cares? Is that not as “obvious” as “more guns = more homicides from guns”?

Why would the number of people owning a gun lead to more or less non-gun homicides? In Vermont, there’s a low homicide rate — of course. But a lot of people own guns. Is that somehow interesting? No. Because the question should be: does Vermont have higher rates of GUN-related homicides compared to states with lower gun ownership? But even that question leaves out the questions of regulations.

All kinds of factors are involved in why some countries are more violent than others: poverty, religious or racial tensions, desperation, gangs.

"If we let people have more guns, are they going to kill more people?" Homicide rates overall are what is relevant because of substitution effects. What good is it if banning guns causes firearm murders to fall, but then total murders stay the same or increase? Why would it be better to keep someone from shooting someone else if they will just stab or strangle them instead? — Count Timothy von Icarus

“If we let people have more guns, with little regulation, are we going to see more killings from guns?” That’s the question. Then you can ask what percentage of overall homicides are from guns, etc.

Yours is the mental health question dressed up in statistics. There’s no reason to believe the US has higher rates of mental health issues. Other countries are just better at not handing an AR-15 to any Joe Blow who comes ambling along.

And yes, it would be better if they were stabbed or strangled. Think of the damage a strangler or stabber could do with a weapon of war. Imagine if Richard Card walked into that bowling alley with a knife.

Whether overall rates will stay the same— I doubt it very much. It’s theoretically possible, but given the number of gun related deaths/homicides in this country, it seems far fetched indeed.

About eight-in-ten U.S. murders in 2021 – 20,958 out of 26,031, or 81% – involved a firearm.

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

You better regulate guns, you drastically reduce overall homicides.

If we thought that would be spree shooters would simply carry out as many and as deadly mass stabbings, what would be the point is banning guns? — Count Timothy von Icarus

Very true. But we don’t think that, do we? Las Vegas massacre, for example, couldn’t happen without those guns. It could happen with a bomb, but bombs aren’t professionally manufactured and then given out to nearly anyone who asks for one.

And so we end up back to the topic at hand, which is gun control.

All of course aided and expedited by the NRA which is basically an arm of the gun manufacturing industry, and extremely libertarian readings of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court. — Wayfarer

That’s it. Timothy knows all this, of course, but for some reason wants to avoid the basic question and instead focus on something that in my view is irrelevant.

That has nothing to do with my point, which is that the straightforward relationship between gun ownership rates and the general homicide rate does not show a robust correlation. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Like asking whether the prevalence of guns increases the likelihood of being strangled or stabbed.

Who cares?

I mean, is "holding violence equal, if people have more guns they will do more of their violence with guns" really a point of contention? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No the question is why we have so many mass shootings — roughly one every day so far this year — and what we can do about it. Other countries don’t have this level of gun violence, but we do.

But you want to ask about “general homicide rates”. Which have declined since 1981. But this thread is about the gun control debate. So the question seems at best a red herring.

The problem is guns and gun regulations.

I've already posted the correlations between homicide rates and gun ownership, for the OECD, all nations, and all states. Your links are about different things (mass shootings, all gun deaths - including suicides, etc.). — Count Timothy von Icarus

No they’re not about different things. I’ll quote once again:

We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

I can’t make you read anything, of course, but it would be helpful if you did. Less tedious.

I mentioned other aspects as well, like mass shootings. I’m aware that’s a (somewhat) different issue.

We have more gun deaths and more mass shootings because we have a grotesque number of guns, and pathetic regulations — which is cheered on by our fellow libertarian fascists, who are perfectly happy to sacrifice the lives of kids to maintain their paranoid views of governments.

The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Yes it is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, it isn’t. As is well documented. I provided several links worth following.

I'm all for gun control, but advocates do themselves a disservice by wanting to argue that there is any simple, direct relationship between the prevalence of firearms and homicides. — Count Timothy von Icarus

It’s not a disservice, it’s true. Adding “simple and direct” doesn’t change things, in my view.

We observed a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates. Although we could not determine causation, we found that states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/#:~:text=Gun%20ownership%20was%20a%20significant,Conclusions.

And I’m not just talking about ownership, I’m talking about number of guns and ease of which they can be obtained in the US.

But this has nothing to do with the point I was making, which is simply that you can have extremely high rates of firearms ownership without much by way of violent crime. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I’m sure it’s possible. So what?

The correlation is weak for countries too — Count Timothy von Icarus

It isn’t.

The US has more mass shooters than any other country, and far more guns.

America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

We have more guns than people.

States with more guns have more gun deaths:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check/

Worth checking this out too:

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/GxOJC1HKqTRUzV87l6JODphQCDQ=/0x0:1916x1721/920x0/filters:focal(0x0:1916x1721):format(webp):no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/12543393/GUN_SCATTER2.jpg

It’s really not that complicated. The issue is guns and gun regulations.

Yeah but you know very well that’s not the full context. A normal human being will ask “Why did this happen?”, especially when a horrific event like October 7th is used to justify the killing of innocent people (aka, “collateral damage”). And the answer to that question isn’t as easy as “they terrorists we good guys.” It just isn’t.

But I’ll leave it there. Not off-topic per se but there’s a whole thread dedicated to this issue.

The view is so warped the “oppressor” must have wanted it. Not only that his comment not so subtly hinted that the government wanted collateral damage, not just getting rid of Hamas. — schopenhauer1

Strawman.

But does Israel “want” to kill innocent Palestinians? Please read into their souls and tell us about what their great intentions are—that justify the reality: killing innocent Palestinians.

Then go on about “moral corruption” as you rationalize genocide.

Hamas’s actions are grotesque. No rational human being is in favor of their actions. The same can apparently not be said of the Israeli government. Why? Because they’re the good guys, with noble intentions.

Also, the equivalency here lies with those defending Israeli war crimes. There’s no parity whatsoever. The balance of power overwhelmingly favors Israel — which is obvious, given the resources and military strength (and backing by the US).

You speak of strawmen but this is one. — schopenhauer1

No, it’s not. At least not Maher’s.

Israelis didn’t want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. — schopenhauer1

Of course they did. They’ve been wanting it for a while. Moreover, they’ve been killing Gazans slowly for years.

Unless of course we’re talking about the people of Israel, not the right-wing, genocidal government. I’m guessing many Israelis are against what their government is doing in Gaza. Likewise the people of Gaza, I suspect, are against the actions of Hamas.

Does Bill Maher have a point? — schopenhauer1

I’ve been watching Bill for nearly 30 years. I find him funny at times— and used to think he was interesting (at least he cares about more important stuff, I figured). Now I think he’s almost always pure fluff. There’s no depth. Just whatever fairly mainstream “hot take” that pops into his aging mind. Relies heavily on strawmen, so he can then look cool tearing them down.

And that’s the level of this entire analysis, I think.

Maybe people have become more critical of their own country— but that’s a good thing. If they go too far with it, then we should object— fine. But notice the real reason for the claim: growing and vocal support for Palestinian people. That’s unacceptable to the old guard and their echoers like Bill Maher. So suddenly the sky is falling and “Western civilization” is under attack.

There isn’t 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? The kids just not know their history! They must be communists! They must be cheering for Hamas and terrorism! They must hate America and the West and all things White!

Give me a break.

The vast majority of humanity was affected by unusual heat over this 12-month period, researchers found, with 7.3 billion people — 90% of the global population — experiencing at least 10 days of high temperatures “with very strong climate fingerprints.”

In India, 1.2 billion people — 86% of the population — experienced at least 30 days of high temperatures, made at least three times more likely by climate change. In the United States, that figure was 88 million people, or 26% of the population.

Some cities were particularly hard hit. In the US, these were concentrated in the South and Southwest. Houston experienced the longest extreme heat streak of any major city on Earth, according to the report, with 22 consecutive days of extreme heat between July and August.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2023/11/09/climate/global-warming-hottest-year-history-climate-intl/index.html

Just as was known and predicted, decades ago. Only getting worse from here.

In a scholarly review of the relationship between gun prevalence and homicide almost 20 years ago, Harvard researchers concluded that available evidence supports the hypothesis that greater numbers of guns corresponds to higher rates of homicide.[1] In the years since, the evidence has strengthened at every level of analysis. Further, the hypothesis that more guns equates to more deaths has been supported using many different ways of measuring gun availability and access.

https://rockinst.org/blog/more-guns-more-death-the-fundamental-fact-that-supports-a-comprehensive-approach-to-reducing-gun-violence-in-america/

The data @Count Timothy von Icarus gave doesn’t seem to jive with others. No reference is provided, so I haven’t checked yet, but my guess is that the parameters are skewed. 2001-2004 is also an odd sample.

I think the most convincing evidence is looking internationally. Comparing the total numbers of guns to gun deaths/mass shootings, and it’s very obvious there’s a correlation. And a strong one. The United States has by far more guns than any other country (but not per capita)— over 400 million. It’s also an outlier for deaths.

So the more guns, the more deaths from guns.

Mass shootings is harder, because it’s harder to define. But going with 4 or more people killed (not including gunman), the rates have risen steadily in the past decade.

They’re still very rare, but far more than other countries that don’t have so many guns, or so lenient gun regulations.

There’s plenty of sensible things we can do for this problem, but unfortunately nut-job “libertarians” and other right-wing fascists, armed with their Nickelodeon notions of freedom and governance, interpret the second amendment as the Supreme Court did in Heller (2008), and view it as holy writ.

We got here for one reason, though: Gun manufacturers, their propaganda and their lobbyists, particularly the NRA.

Once it became wrapped up with identity— the old west, rugged individualism, masculinity, small government, freedom, etc — it was over. I don’t blame the indoctrinated masses who keep voting in the NRA shills. It was the gun manufacturers all along. Follow the money, and it usually reveals the answer.

My ex-girlfriend’s apartment in South Carolina had bed bugs. We googled it and a Orkin was gonna charge a ridiculous amount per room, so we got a bunch of sprays instead. It seemed to be contained to the bedroom. We successfully got rid of them.

First we vacuumed and cleaned everything. We very carefully washed all the clothing and bedding (the heat from the dryer killers any eggs). Then I sprayed every part of the room and covered the mattress. I think we waited a day or so before using it again. But we never had any issues.

I think the biggest thing is being very thorough, because the eggs can be anywhere.

It’s a really sucky problem to have and I’m sorry to hear it. I’m dealing with my own issues with bats, and that sucks too— but I’d take bats over bed bugs.

Climate science: the one domain where a layperson's normal humility goes completely out the window.

You wouldn't find the average person, with no formal (or even informal) training or education walking into a physics or engineering department and lecturing the teachers -- based on a few news articles they've read, or the 30 minutes they've taken to "think critically and skeptically" about the issue, supposedly finding mistakes that all the world's experts have missed.

You wouldn't see this in any other field -- that hasn't been politicized, of course. If something has been manufactured as "controversial," then these ridiculous claims can be made. Suddenly they're "skeptics" just "asking questions." Yeah, sure.

Thus, we have nonsense claims about building structures from 9/11 "truthers," bogus claims about vaccines from anti-vaxxers, laughable statements about geology from creationists, and god knows what from flat-earthers.

You would think these imbeciles would hesitate when it comes to science. Especially science that is so overwhelmingly supported. But it doesn't stop them. They simply must embarrass themselves over and over.

When I was a child, I did the same thing -- it was my way of learning, in the end. Rather than ask questions, I pretended I knew what I was talking about regarding biochemistry. But I grew out of that. It would be nice if climate deniers did the same -- but since it's not about evidence anyway, I won't hold my breath.

in exactly the same way, then it would be fine. — FreeEmotion

No. That’s not the argument, and it wouldn’t be fine.

True, justifications and pretexts are always given. They’re given by everyone from Hamas to the Nazis to the IDF to the Pentagon.

But what it comes down to is usually predictable: when they do it, it’s terrorism. When we do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

What would be realistic criteria for a state to be considered successful? — Vera Mont

Where people can determine how to organize, what to produce, how to produce it, how to distribute what’s produced, and meaningfully participate in communal decisions. Whether a nation-state is needed is questionable. I don’t think it is.

So let’s condemn the brutality of Hamas and then turn around and do the same things. All perfectly fine, however, because all Palestinian children killed are killed defensively and accidentally— i.e., with good intentions. Not like the savage, “animal” members of the other team.

To pretend there’s any parity between a US-backed settler-colonial state and the actions coming out of an illegally occupied territory is absurd.

The least we should be asking for is a ceasefire.

It is the younger generation who is "setting one generation against another". — Agree-to-Disagree

So it’s the “younger generation” that posted that shallow commentary from Michael Deacon? Damn those younglings.

But you don't want to think, you want to spread poison. — unenlightened

:up:

Cohan put it better than I have (from 2010):

NATO expansion is not over for the Russians. It’s a reality. NATO is sitting on its borders. It’s not about future NATO expansion; it’s about current.

NATO expansion represents the following to Russia: It represents a profoundly broken promise to Russia, made by the first Bush, that in return for a united Germany in NATO, NATO would not expand eastward. This is beyond any dispute.

People say they never signed a treaty. But a deal is a deal. If the United States gives its word—unless we’re shysters, and if you don’t get it in writing, we’ll cheat you—we broke our word. When both Putin and Medvedev say publicly, to Madeleine Albright and others, “We, Russia, feel deceived and betrayed,” that’s what they are talking about.

So NATO represents on the part of Russia a lack of trust: You break your words to us. To what extent can we trust you?

Secondly, it represents military encirclement. If you sit in the Kremlin and you look out at where NATO is and where they want to go, it’s everywhere. It’s everywhere on Russia’s borders.

But there’s something even more profound that is a taboo in the United States. NATO expansion represents for the Russians American hypocrisy and a dual standard. They see it this way, and I can’t think of any way to deny their argument.

The expansion of NATO is the expansion of the American sphere of influence, plain and simple. Where NATO goes, our military force goes. Where NATO goes, our arms munitions go, because they have to buy American weapons. Where NATO goes, Western soldiers go, who date their women, who bring along their habits, and all the other things. It’s clearly, undebatably, indisputably an expansion of America’s sphere of influence.

So there has been a tremendous expansion of America’s sphere of influence since the mid-1990s, right plunk on Russia’s borders, with all the while, every American administration saying to Russia, including the Obama Administration, “You cannot have a sphere of influence because that’s old thinking.”

The Russians may be cruel, but they’re not stupid. In other words, what they say [America is saying] is, “We can now have the biggest sphere of influence the world has ever seen, and you don’t get any, not even on your own border. In fact, we’re taking what used to be your traditional sphere of influence, along with the energy and all the rest. It’s ours now”—again, this idea of a winner-take-all policy.

This is the enormous resentment in Russia. The relationship will never become a stable, cooperative relationship until we deal with this problem.

Does it mean Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence? I don’t want to think for Jack Matlock, but Jack thinks yes, depending on what you mean by “sphere of influence.” They can’t occupy countries. We had a Monroe Doctrine. But the point is that until this is worked out, the relationship will never truly be post-Cold War.

The problem is, it’s taboo in America to talk about this issue of who has a sphere of influence, who is entitled to it. I think there are solutions, but you can’t even get the question asked.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=204&v=mciLyG9iexE&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fmronline.org%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

Again: I was asking for evidence that the US controls the membership of the EU. Instead you just give your assertions again. — Jabberwock

Because it’s so obvious to me I feel that a) you’re being disingenuous or b) are so unaware of US power that explaining it in detail is a diversion. But as quickly as possible: no, there US doesn’t directly control membership in the EU. Europe does rely, however, on the US for their defense. That alone is a pretty big deal, to say nothing of economic leverage.

The exact words you have used were: 'But there wouldn’t have been invasion'. You seem to think that if you do enough backtracking, your previous statements should be erased: no, that is not the way it works. — Jabberwock

As I said earlier: yes, you got me. I am indeed backtracking on that statement. I cannot be 100% certain that Russia wouldn’t have invaded anyway, even if NATO didn’t exist or there was no US involvement whatsoever. True. I don’t have a time machine.

So you acknowledge that the main support of your argument: Ukraine's military arming and training with NATO countries between 2014 and 2021 is not the US doing, but reaction to Russia's invasion. We are making a progress then. — Jabberwock

What I’ve been trying to emphasize is the Russian perspective, right or wrong. That means whether the Ukrainians support NATO membership or not, whether the US is simply giving them what they want, whether the US is justified in arming Ukraine, etc. Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t, maybe it’s opportunistic — a good pretext for fighting a proxy war it wanted all along. I have my opinion on all of that. But that wasn’t the topic.

Right or wrong, I think the evidence — from our own government, from statements from the Kremlin, from scholarship — shows that US involvement was all over this conflict, and that Putin has been a very reactive leader.

The threat was not imminent, but it was definitely there, — Jabberwock

Of what? Not of what’s only retroactively claimed now, of Russian imperialist ambitions.

You’re doing a lot of assuming. But there’s no evidence suggesting Russia was planning on conquering Ukraine or annexing parts of Ukraine prior to 2008. Making the push of NATO expansion rather odd. But we know why: the US had explicit plans for Eastern Europe. The goal was to make it a Western-style democracy.

The claim you’re making is that Russia would have invaded anyway, regardless of US influence. Well, we won’t ever know, will we? But it’s a nice, unfalsiable story to tell to justify US imperialism. “Hey, they would have done it anyway, so might as well go ahead with it despite dire warnings.”

You acknowledge yourself that NATO was only one of the causes of Russia's aggression. — Jabberwock

Yes. The main cause in 2022— a secondary cause in 2014. These things are interconnected, as I’ve demonstrated repeatedly, with plenty of evidence.

So your nice story that Russia would not invade if not for the US influence is even more unfalsifiable. — Jabberwock

True, as I mentioned above. I’ll retract that statement, given I don’t have a time machine— nor do you. But I do consider it unlikely to have happened without the US meddling.

If Taiwan entered a military alliance, and started training troops and getting supplies, it would be the Taiwan's decision, not the US, just like it was Ukraine's decision after 2004, which you have acknowledged yourself. — Jabberwock

And once again you completely miss the point.

How would China react to this, based on what we know?

I’m not arguing whether Taiwan is right or wrong in their decisions.

You’ve provided nothing equivalent prior to Bucharest.
— Mikie

That is an obvious and blatant lie, there is no putting it differently. I have given you about half a dozen of quotes and excerpts from the document which have shown that Ukraine was preparing to join NATO since 2002. — Jabberwock

They applied for MAP in Bucharest, 2008. That’s very serious, for reasons articulated by Burns and others. I don’t see anything equivalent to that prior to Bucharest. However much you want to pretend 2008 was nothing different. It was different.

Russian internal politics — Jabberwock

To take a broader view for a second. Perhaps it’s worth asking yourself why the US cares so much about Ukraine, to the tune of billions of dollars? Would it be fighting such a proxy war in Sudan?

Ukraine is strategically important to the US, as it is for Russia. Despite your dismissals, this is indeed a fight between two powers. Ukraine is caught in the middle, and wouldn’t survive a week without US military aid (or training). This bigger picture shouldn’t be overlooked.

We can go on believing in US benevolence and love of democracy, and that Washington really cares about the Ukrainian people. Or we can take the less comfortable path and take seriously what Russia says, and has said all along, about NATO’s actions and US influence. I see a lot of truth in it, despite my being against Russian aggression.

(The same is true of the current war in Israel, incidentally. It’s worth listening to the Palestinian people. Or we can take the easier route and claim there’s simply evil, similar to the story about Russia.)

You come back, over and over, to Russian “internal politics.” Let’s see what that means exactly, and get some evidence. Because otherwise it’s yet another vague claim.

What do you think this statement proves? I don't want to try to guess your point and get it wrong. — Echarmion

Appreciate it.

It further proves, in my view, the Biden administration’s commitment to Ukraine. That means even more NATO training, drills, weapons, etc. All right along the Russian border. And recommitting to Ukrainian membership.

More a mess than before, you mean? But then why the full scale invasion? With vague goals and plenty of rhetoric that clearly suggests a major annexation? — Echarmion

I’m not sure what you’re asking here. It was an invasion, yes. The goal wasn’t to annex all of Ukraine.

That rather than being a miscalculation and a weird aberration, the 2022 invasion is actually the core of Putin's strategy. That all the previous steps were merely expedient holding actions until the main event could be launched. — Echarmion

But the evidence for that isn’t convincing.

There were warnings for months prior to the invasion. Whether it was foregone, I don’t know. But it seems interesting that nearly every time the US escalates, Russia reacts. I don’t think it’s coincidence or some cover story for Russia. I also don’t buy those who try to pretend like there was no escalation, or who dismiss Russian claims.

AFAIK no one has ever suggested Ukraine could possibly join NATO with an active Russian army on its soil. — Echarmion

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/09/01/joint-statement-on-the-u-s-ukraine-strategic-partnership/

I don’t think the official stamp was necessary, given that NATO was all over Ukraine anyway. I think the point was to essentially make Ukraine a mess, which it has.

So your position is that, if Ukrainian NATO membership had not been confirmed in 2008, there would have been no 2022 invasion. — Echarmion

But there wouldn’t have been invasion. Of course NATO is only the most direct cause — Mikie

Let me rephrase, since it’s apparently confusing: there would (likely) be no invasion. True, I assumed we all agree I don’t have a Time Machine so can’t be 100% certain. You got me.

My question then is: what was the goal of the 2022 invasion? To prevent NATO membership? — Echarmion

Yes, which it did. But it was stupid, in my view. It’s driven Finland and others right into the hands of the US, and has “lost” Western Ukraine for generations, who will obviously not forget this aggression.

No, it was not the same position. — Jabberwock

No, it is not useless — Jabberwock

No, you have not. — Jabberwock

Fantastic arguments. “No, opposite.” How tedious.

Can you provide any evidence that the US decides who joins the EU? — Jabberwock

The European countries — from Britain to Germany to France, have basically taken orders from Washington for years.

It’s like asking if the US “controls” the UN.

That is rather funny from someone who not long ago claimed that not joining NATO would prevent the war. — Jabberwock

Except that was never said. I realize that’s what your mind has created, yes.

If Russia sees Ukraine's independence as a threat, how is that Ukraine's fault, not to mention the US? Your argument has now devolved to the point that if Ukraine joined trade cooperation with the EU, then it would still be the US fault. It is simply absurd. — Jabberwock

Except I don’t say that. I’m not talking about “fault,” I’m discussing what Russian’s have stated over and over again, and which you ignore.

Did the US did that as well? — Jabberwock

No— Crimea did that.

On the other hand, if they have expected that Russia would escalate the ongoing conflict anyway, then such attitude would be quite reasonable — Jabberwock

And so we’re back to the beginning. What was the imminent threat from Russia in 2008 that NATO needed to expand to its borders? None.

The claim you’re making is that Russia would have invaded anyway, regardless of US influence. Well, we won’t ever know, will we? But it’s a nice, unfalsiable story to tell to justify US imperialism. “Hey, they would have done it anyway, so might as well go ahead with it despite dire warnings.”

Perhaps the US should talk about including Taiwan as part of a military alliance, start training troops, offering supplies, etc. China has been clear about where it stands, but we should go ahead with it regardless, since China would probably start a war anyway.

Of course, you are still unable to tell what it was exactly that the US did in 2008 — Jabberwock

“Ukraine will be a member of NATO”. This is at the NATO summit. Plans were set to be put in motion. It’s true that they weren’t, yes. But that set the stage for where we are today.

You’ve provided nothing equivalent prior to Bucharest.

See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say.
— Mikie

So now you say that Russia began a war in 2022 over the exact same positions which both the US and Russia held since 1991. Right... Yet somehow I remember you writing 'prior to 2008, when the NATO provocation began'... This gets funnier with every post... — Jabberwock

I don’t see how this is confusing. The Russian position on NATO was very clear — for years. So yes, a reaction to a renewed intent (even referring to the 2008 summit) to have Ukraine join NATO, as communicated in 2021, shouldn’t be a shocker. Quite consistent, in fact.

And yes, the change was somewhat fast, — Jabberwock

It wasn’t fast — it was the same position all along. It was the same position in the 90s, in 2002, in 2004, and in 2008. As I’ve shown multiple times now.

What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?
— Mikie

As I have already written, he was opposed to it — Jabberwock

Okay, so your quote from 2002 is useless. He was opposed then, he was opposed in 2008. Did the harshness of the rhetoric change? Of course— as situations change. The position remained exactly the same.

Again, asserting the existence of evidence is not evidence. If it is 'abundant', you should have no problem with providing it. Yet somehow you do not. — Jabberwock

I have, again and again. You simply wave your hand and say I haven’t— or that it doesn’t count. Too bad.

Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”
— Mikie

I have SPECIFICALLY written that the process was shelved between 2008 and 2014, and I did it several times, so what 2021 has to do with it? Sometimes it seems you do not even read what you respond to. — Jabberwock

And it seems you don’t even read what you write:

So you got it completely backwards, if there was a 'someday' declaration, then it was the one from Bucharest. Which is further confirmed by the following events: after 2008 the integration efforts have slowed down and the path toward Ukraine's neutrality has been followed. — Jabberwock

The US position has not changed a bit since then, the Russian position did, which prompted the reaction of Germany and France (and the internal support in Ukraine), as shown in the documents. Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock

No mention of 2014. If you want to be clear, then state “it was shelved UNTIL 2014,” not “has been,” which implies up to the present.

And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation.
— Mikie

Oh, so now the EU cooperation is also the US fault. Is that your 'understanding of the situation'? — Jabberwock

I hate to be the one to tell you, but theUS has a massive influence in the world, including the EU.

No, the EU cooperation (not expansion, you are confused again) was not a 'Trojan horse' and it was not a separate 'threat' from NATO, as you believe. — Jabberwock

I said the complete opposite, in fact. It was not a completely separate threat from NATO— it was related, in fact. From the Russian point of view.

But how nice it must be to save your hand in complete disregard for that perspective, and declare “no, sorry, you’re not threatened— because it’s simply not a threat.” Cool.

It was a threat, and was stated as such. Your dismissals are as worthless as your judgments of evidence.

These are (as I have already written many times) just aspects of the same root cause of the conflict, i.e. the Ukrainian drive toward independence from Russia. — Jabberwock

Yes, true. “Independence from Russia,” and into the sphere of US influence. Which according to you was opposed by Russia, but not a threat— that part they were just lying about or using as pretext.

So yes, he clearly disapproves, but says it should not affect the relations — Jabberwock

Yes, exactly. “I strongly oppose Ukraine joining NATO, but that opposition shouldn’t mean we stop talking.”

It doesn’t mean “Hey, I strongly disapprove of this— but if it happens, no big deal, and shouldn’t affect relations.” You’re just misreading it, in an attempt to support a strange narrative.

The US always wanted Ukraine and any other Eastern European nation in NATO (true, “push” is an ambiguous term here) — but pressed for it at various strengths at various times. Russian opposition was always there as well, very consistent— but it’s rhetoric differed in tone at various times.

You want to point to different years, context free, in an attempt to show inconsistencies. The reality is that the US plan for Eastern Europe since 1991 and Russia’s position on those plans have been very stable indeed. All the smoke that’s been blown notwithstanding.

They literally write that 'In the YEARS that followed, Putin GREW INCREASINGLY outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe', so if that was supposed to show that Putin's position did not change, you have picked just the quote that says the exact opposite. It confirms what I have written many times: over the years Putin's disapproval grew from rather mild to quite strong. — Jabberwock

See above. His position was the same — true, he grew more outspoken and the rhetoric differed at various times. No kidding. So what? There was also a war started over this, and there wasn’t a war in 2004. That’s very different as well, I’d say.

Not angry, but thank you for attempting to read minds.

I hardly consider my conversation with Jabberwock a “shouting match.” But thank you for your input.

Just like you ignore all the evidence that the Russian reaction has more to do with their internal politics and perceived strength than with the concrete state of NATO membership. — Echarmion

:roll:

Of course that matters. It’s a truism. Whether it has “more to do” with it is the point.

But thanks for interjecting with claims about strawmaning and motivated reasoning while you demonstrate exactly that.

Good OP.

Given that nihilistic greed and wealth inequality that rivals the pharaohs is the status quo, under the cover of “capitalism,” it’s safe to say we’ve gone the way of irrationality/unreasonableness.

I don’t think we chose it though.

So your claim that 'Bucharest was much more threatening' is pure assertion, not based on any evidence. — Jabberwock

Except Russia’s own statements, Burns’ memo to Rice, Germany and France’s statements, etc. All of which you dismiss. So your judgment of what constitutes “evidence” is worthless to me.

Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession. — Jabberwock

Seems to contradict your prior statements.

I give you direct quote from Putin, yet you insist he thought then something else. — Jabberwock

Funny— I too have quotes from Putin. Several and, more relevant, from 2008. In fact I also give quotes from the US ambassador, and can provide statements from Germany and France leaders at the time as well. Yet you “insist [they] thought something else.” In fact you just ignore all of it, since it’s inconvenient to your preferred narrative of a sudden “irrational” change.

On the other band, you give one statement from six years prior, which is both irrelevant and which I have addressed several times— as a reminder, it also contains the following:

But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged.

What does that mean to you? What “position” do you think he’s referring to?

I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact.
— Mikie

Except there was no particular push, as you are obviously unable to provide any evidence for it. — Jabberwock

There is abundant evidence. Again, your judgment of what counts as evidence is totally worthless.

Because of this the process has been shelved, neutrality has been chosen and the focus turned to trade integration with the EU. — Jabberwock

Which is another threat. But no, it hasn’t been “shelved.” It continues right to today. It was made especially egregious in 2021. Google the September US announcement on Ukraine, or Wikipedia “Operation Sea Breeze.”

Your story just isn’t serious.

If what you said was true, then at that time Russia should not care much about what happened in Ukraine, as the main threat, in your opinion, has been removed. But we know that is not what happened - Russia has seen the EU integration at least as an equal threat and decided to derail that process — Jabberwock

Maybe you’re just playing games at this point.

I’ll repeat once again: NATO is one threat. Not the only threat. Can’t get much clearer.

And if you can’t recognize that EU expansion was seen as a Trojan horse for NATO, by Russia, then you have zero interest in understanding this situation.

But that does not suit your narrative that the US somehow changed its policy and 'did' something in 2008 to which Russians only reacted at that time (for which, it should be again noted, you have given no evidence — Jabberwock

Still, Ukraine has expected to receive the MAP in Bucharest - that would begin the real and immediate process of accession.

Ask the Russians what the issue was if you don’t believe me. The US was pushing for NATO forever, and Russia’s position has been the same forever— since 91. The difference, however, is that it looked like it was truly going to happen, and soon. With both Ukraine and Georgia.

It doesn’t matter if you can’t get your head around the reaction. It doesn’t matter if you dismiss or discount their very real warnings because they “changed their minds” in 2004/2005 (Putin in 2004: “'Russia's position toward the enlargement of NATO is well known and has not changed”). It doesn’t matter if you consider it irrational. This was the Russian position.

Russian leaders have long been wary of the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly as the alliance opened its doors to former Warsaw Pact states and ex-Soviet republics in the late 1990s (the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland) and early 2000s (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). Their fears grew in the late 2000s as the alliance stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine at an unspecified point in the future.

[…]

In the years that followed, Putin grew increasingly outspoken in his displeasure at NATO’s inroads into Eastern Europe, saying at a high-profile speech in Munich in 2007 that “it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.” In the summer following NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO stated its intent to admit Georgia and Ukraine, Russia invaded the former. Six years later, as Kyiv stepped closer to an economic partnership with another Western bloc, the European Union, Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/why-nato-has-become-flash-point-russia-ukraine

Is there CFR a Russian propaganda outlet? They too get the story completely wrong, according to an internet guy.

The support for joining NATO was about equal in 2002 and decreased from then (as the Russian opposition increased)[…]So yes, the people. — Jabberwock

Hardly. But nice that you change it up to the EU when convenient.

Sure, US supported it more than some other countries, but so what? NATO is an organization, the US is influential there, but you are clearly overestimating its power, — Jabberwock

And I think you’re underestimating it.

As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it. — Jabberwock

And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.
— Mikie

Yes, both Kuchma and Yushchenko did choose it — Jabberwock

I was very clearly responding to the above quotation you provided, where Bush said NATO membership was open to the “Ukrainian people if they choose it.” As already has been established, the people didn’t choose anything of the sort.

which part of LONG-TERM GOAL OF NATO MEMBERSHIP is that hard to understand that I have to repeat it over and over? — Jabberwock

Which part of “someday” statements is hard to understand? If you can’t tell the difference, from Russia’s point of view, then you’re not paying attention. Bucharest was much more threatening, and that was obvious at the time.

Can you give ANY evidence that the US position has somehow changed in 2008? Because I can give you a ton of other quotes that show it has basically remained the same for decades. — Jabberwock

Yes, Bucharest was different from the Russian point of view. Why? Because it was made unambiguous and immediate: “We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO.”

Your inability to see why Russia would consider this threatening is in keeping with your general dismissal of their concerns, since you’ve convinced yourself that it’s mostly nonsense. But that prevents you from seeing what our own ambassador saw:

In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

[…]

Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.

And what Putin said at Bucharest:

if Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and the eastern regions. It will simply fall apart.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-020-00235-7

Which is a pity. But apparently, you can see into the soul of Putin, and can legitimately disregard these statements because Russia is a bad imperial power, and the US a good one— which supposedly had little influence in all this.

I reject that thesis. The US has had massive influence— over other European countries, over financial incentives, over shaping public opinion, and over military training. NATO, along with the general push to make Ukraine a “liberal democracy,” and the integration into the EU, were seen — rightly or wrongly — as a threat to Russia. No obfuscation will change that fact.

Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.
— Mikie

I have already given you the quote from Putin where he says it will not particularly influence the relations with Ukraine. Have you already forgotten it? — Jabberwock

The one quotation, which is questionable, also contains the opposite sentiment. But in any case, it was stated long before 2008. Notice what I said: “at the time.” Do you not accept that at that time— 2008 at Bucharest—Russia was very clear about its position on Ukraine joining NATO? Burns seemed to think so— and I’ll go with his expertise, and Putin’s statements at the time (along with others), over ONE questionable, contradictory statement from 6 years prior. That you pin your hopes on that, and totally avoid 2008, is just avoidance.

Ukrainians, Georgians and others were witness to that and wanted to join them. — Jabberwock

Yet the polling indicated the opposite, and had for years, up to and including 2008. So what Ukrainians are you talking about? Not the people.

I will not argue about that — Jabberwock

Good. So just know that the US has a hand in this as well, for decades. This wasn't an accident, and it was done with the full knowledge that it would provoke Russia. That was a mistake. It also wasn't being pushed by the people of Ukraine at that time.

The reason for NATO expansion is obvious. It's part of an overall strategy for Eastern Europe, mostly to do with, ultimately, money. To argue the US cares about democracy or the people of Ukraine is laughable. So the question is: was it worth it, knowing full well that it would eventually provoke a response -- as our own ambassador had warned about? I don't think so.

Our position is clear: As democracy takes hold in Ukraine and its leaders pursue vital reforms, NATO membership will be open to the Ukrainian people if they choose it.
— President Bush Discusses NATO Alliance During Visit to Latvia November 28, 2006

Is he joking or is he pushing? — Jabberwock

And they didn't choose it. But regardless, no. This is not the same as the statement "Ukraine and Georgia will join NATO." That occurred at Bucharest.

Saying that the preparations for Ukraine's joining were 'not serious' simply ignores the historical record. — Jabberwock

It's the US position I was talking about. Prior to Bucharest, there were only the vague statements you provided -- "Someday." That day became much more real, to Russia, in 2008.

So you are saying Russians suddenly turned from a peaceful nation to a belligerent one — Jabberwock

No -- their position was quite clear, for years, concerning Ukraine membership in NATO.

Unless you're seriously arguing that Russia was in favor of Ukrainian membership in NATO, this discussion is pointless. If you accept what the US's own experts said at the time regarding Russia's position, then let's move on.

Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.
— Mikie

Not exactly, the two are not even simliar. — Jabberwock

Exactly. One is the good guy, one isn’t. And that’s the fundamental upstream issue by which you interpret everything else.

Saying that the US controls, say, Poland or Lithuania in the same way like Russia controls Belarus is simply absurd — Jabberwock

Except I never once said that. The US actions in central and South America are certainly comparable — if not far worse. To say nothing of the atrocities in the Middle East, Indonesia, Southeast Asia, etc. If you want to be serious about “imperial aggression,” comparing the US and Russia is indeed absurd — the US is far worse.

signing the Action Plan and official Kuchma's declaration in 2002. — Jabberwock

The purpose of the Action Plan is to identify clearly Ukraine’s strategic objectives and priorities in pursuit of its aspirations towards full integration into Euro-Atlantic security structures and to provide a strategic framework for existing and future NATO-Ukraine cooperation under the Charter. In this context it will be periodically reviewed.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm

Kuchma’s declaration was an attempt to gain favor with NATO. But regardless, the US wasn’t pushing at that point and wasn’t serious about Ukraine membership. It had its own problems at the time, and knew very well that this would provoke Russia. There was no official US push until 2008. And it’s US involvement that Russia reacted against, and what’s relevant.

Alright, so by your definition we have two countries with competing geopolitical goals, and thus two “imperial” powers. If that is indeed what is meant, than the US is winning, by far, and from the Russian point of view is quite threatening.

Your claim is that Russia should have no control over Ukraine, a significant piece of the overall power game. I mostly agree — it should be the people who decide. On the other hand, do you also agree the US should exercise no control? That they shouldn’t have pushed for NATO membership in 2008, for example, when the polls showed the people did not want to join it and Russia was posing no threat? Was Russia supposed to just sit back and watch, no matter what happens? Would the US be expected to do so in similar circumstances?

Seems to me you’re just fine with imperialism, provided it’s the good guys doing it.

Yes, Russia has lost its grip over the former republics after the fall of the USSR, but that is the exact problem: it wants it back. That is the root problem of conflicts of which Ukraine is only the biggest one. — Jabberwock

Okay— this is an important difference. I don’t buy this.

You said a second before that imperialism isn’t restricted to conquering a region — fine. Now you fall back on the position that Russia does want to take over former republics. Not sure what “wants it back” would mean otherwise.

There's only one party that categorically refuses a two states solution since its inception and that's Likud. Israel needs to be pressured to stop voting for it. BDS is the only way to do that. — Benkei

:up: :up:

Once again, international law, as well as morality and decency, go completely out the window when a major power gets hit by a weaker power. Same occurred after 9/11.

You can’t claim you care about children and civilians and then turn around and kill them yourself.

I'm going to stick my neck out and suggest we may have crossed a tipping point. — unenlightened

I too hope you’re wrong, but fear you’re correct. The Amazon and Arctic aren’t far behind.

Oh, so now it is 'social engineering', because you simply cannot accept the fact that it is Ukrainians themselves that finally want to leave the Russian sphere of influence, just like many other countries in the region. You absolutely do not care what Ukrainians think about that. — Jabberwock

I do— but I’ll repeat myself again: what’s relevant isn’t what I think, it’s what the Russians think. Is there any reason for them to be concerned? What do they say? Do they believe Western forces were involved? Do they mention NATO at all (which you claimed they didn’t)? Yes. Now— is there any truth to those claims? Turns out, yes. Turns out the US was funding pro-democracy groups for years.

Now I’m in favor of democracy. I’m in favor of Ukrainians deciding for themselves what to do. But the topic here is also what Russians perceive, because we’re discussing the causes of their aggressions.

The US would love to have us believe they had no hand in any of this— totally blameless. But we should question whether that’s true. We should listen to the Russians, to our own ambassadors, to dissent scholars, etc., and see if it holds any weight. I think it does, especially given the United States’ role as a world power the last 60+ years.

But that is one and the same - Russia's imperlalism is exactly the demand to call the shots in its former republics, — Jabberwock

Alright, so what is US involvement if not imperialism? Diplomacy and good will?

Imperialism was not given as a reason for NATO expansion. But Poland and others already joined— with no invasion, regardless. Ukraine was and is a red line for Russia, as they stated clearly for years. If not wanting NATO on your doorstep is imperialism, so be it. But that’s a stretch, I think. I wouldn’t hear many claiming the US as being imperialist if it annexed Baha in reaction to a Chinese-backed regime change in Mexico. Or that it wished to conquer Mexico and this was the proof.

Russia had and has no intention of conquering Ukraine. The logistics don’t add up, among other reasons. The goal isn’t conquest or re-forming the USSR.

If Russia wanted to “call the shots” in all its former territories, it failed miserably. Having some say in whether a neighbor along your borders —with historical and cultural ties to Russia, especially in the east — joins western military alliances and gets dominated by western interests is a little different.

I’m in favor of Ukrainian freedom. They should put it to a vote and work it out. But let’s not pretend that Russia hadn’t been screaming about this for years, even before 2014 when the polls started to change in favor of NATO.

I don’t like Russia or what Russia is doing. But I’m a US citizen, and I don’t like what we’ve done — and are doing— either.