The Ukrainians don't think it is a proxy war. — Paine

True. The Vietnamese villagers didn't think it was a proxy war either. They just knew that their houses and crops were being burned and children were being killed.

I guess we should ignore geopolitical facts, then?

Beg your pardon, but that's a fatuous remark.

And we don't know how successful the Ukranians will be in pushing Russia out, they appear to be close to getting Kharkov. And if they do get it back, obviously it would be a tremendously brave accomplishment. — Manuel

I hope they get it all back. But that's easy for me to say. Putin will not simply slink away quietly, and since it doesn't appear that the US has any interest in encouraging negotiations -- nor does Putin -- that more Ukrainians will have to die, over what's ultimately a stupid proxy war.

But to think this won't get an even stronger Russian reply, is what confuses me. I think it's evident that it will, just look at the missiles raining down on Ukraine now. — Manuel

It really is sickening. There's no reason to believe he'll simply accept defeat, of course. That'd be like assuming Trump would concede an election.

Questions answered twice. — NOS4A2

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context? — Baden

Please elaborate. — Baden

I assume that adults have some semblance of right and wrong which they develop as they age. — NOS4A2

I'll repeat the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? — Baden

A fully developed morality is a set of principles of conduct and behavior. It develops as one ages. Yes. — NOS4A2

Here's the question:

What is a "fully developed morality" and where does it come from under your view? Do you see it as present in most human adults in roughly equal proportion regardless of historical, cultural and political context?
— Baden

Address the role of social, political and historical context re morality. Address its origin. — Baden

This isn’t an interview. — NOS4A2

:lol:

First, the United States is principally responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis. This is not to deny that Putin started the war and that he is responsible for Russia’s conduct of the war. Nor is it to deny that America’s allies bear some responsibility, but they largely follow Washington’s lead on Ukraine. My central claim is that the United States has pushed forward policies toward Ukraine that Putin and other Russian leaders see as an existential threat, a point they have made repeatedly for many years. Specifically, I am talking about America’s obsession with bringing Ukraine into NATO and making it a Western bulwark on Russia’s border. The Biden administration was unwilling to eliminate that threat through diplomacy and indeed in 2021 recommitted the United States to bringing Ukraine into NATO. Putin responded by invading Ukraine on Feb. 24 of this year.

Second, the Biden administration has reacted to the outbreak of war by doubling down against Russia. Washington and its Western allies are committed to decisively defeating Russia in Ukraine and employing comprehensive sanctions to greatly weaken Russian power. The United States is not seriously interested in finding a diplomatic solution to the war, which means the war is likely to drag on for months if not years. In the process, Ukraine, which has already suffered grievously, is going to experience even greater harm. In essence, the United States is helping lead Ukraine down the primrose path. Furthermore, there is a danger that the war will escalate, as NATO might get dragged into the fighting and nuclear weapons might be used. We are living in perilous times.

--

I think this sums it up concisely.

But it went on expanding, despite Russia warning about red lines, not unlike what China has said about Taiwan, and when the line was crossed, what, we forget the history? — Manuel

This is exactly it. The US government (not the people, the government and their foreign policy) and its hegemony just will not learn its lesson: not every country will bow to its will. You cannot simply go into a country, smash it up, say "Mission Accomplished," and then be shocked when you have to stay there for 20 years, and ISIS rises from the ashes. You cannot simply invade Vietnam and not expect a fierce reaction. You cannot interfere with China's claims on Taiwan and expect them to lie down. You cannot expect the Palestinians not to be resentful of continued support of Israeli occupation.

Somehow, when it comes to making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO -- which they did, and were clear about doing -- when there's a reaction we have to attribute that reaction to something other than our involvement. It's because of evil, or because they want to take over the world, or because they hate us for our freedom, etc.

So I keep getting in your face, closer and closer -- until finally react by punching me. You weren't justified to punch me -- there were alternatives; but it shouldn't have been a shock to me that you did, given my behavior.

In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

"I robbed the bank because I needed money for drugs."

Does this excuse him from robbing the bank? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't true. Nor does it mean we have to come up with theories about the internal workings of his soul, and the "true" motives for robbing the bank.

Lots of people (and governments) cover up their crimes with lies they tell themselves and others. But sometimes an atrocity (like 9/11) is done simply for the reasons stated. That doesn't mean they're good reasons. It doesn't mean it justifies the actions.

So what are the "real" motives? Why isn't the stated motive stupid and depraved enough? Why postulate things (with less support) unnecessarily?

All this amounts to believing some of Putin's account about some of his motivations. It's not going anywhere close to overwhelming. In fact it's very weak, akin to believing a criminal's excuses for his crimes. — Olivier5

No, what's weak is simply projecting motives to someone you dislike. I dislike Putin too; I also disliked Bin Laden. The latter's reasons for attacking the US I think should be taken seriously -- I believe his stated motives were true. By no means does it justify what was done, but there's little reason to doubt those were the reasons in the mind of someone like Bin Laden. I suppose we could just say "They hate us for our freedom," or that Bin Laden was just insane...OK, that's an answer too. But we don't take that seriously, do we?

Putin was pretty clear about what was happening:

Putin made numerous public statements during this period that left no doubt that he viewed NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat. Speaking to the Defense Ministry Board on December 21, 2021, he stated: “what they are doing, or trying or planning to do in Ukraine, is not happening thousands of kilometers away from our national border. It is on the doorstep of our house. They must understand that we simply have nowhere further to retreat to. Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge?” Two months later at a press conference on February 22, 2022, just days before the war started, Putin said: “We are categorically opposed to Ukraine joining NATO because this poses a threat to us, and we have arguments to support this. I have repeatedly spoken about it in this hall.” He then made it clear that he recognized that Ukraine was becoming a de facto member of NATO. The United States and its allies, he said, “continue to pump the current Kiev authorities full of modern types of weapons.” He went on to say that if this was not stopped, Moscow “would be left with an ‘anti-Russia’ armed to the teeth. This is totally unacceptable.”

Putin’s logic should make perfect sense to Americans, who have long been committed to the Monroe Doctrine, which stipulates that no distant great power is allowed to place any of its military forces in the Western Hemisphere.

The onus is on those who have an alternative explanation. That it was just the sudden capricious act of an evil lunatic; that it was a long-planned action of an imperialist -- etc. The evidence really just does not support this. It's extremely weak. Despite being almost "common sense" to so many.

I think Putin's own statements are true, yet they do not justify what was done. Just as the US's backing of Israel didn't justify 9/11, despite those actually being Bin Laden's reasons.

--

I wish the US would eventually learn that not every country will simply passively accept anything they do. We didn't learn it in Vietnam, or in Iraq. We haven't learned from Israel. Next we will be testing China. Should anyone be surprised by the future actions of China if they continue to be provoked? I don't think so.

I don't think the US war in Afghanistan was right -- I condemned it. But was anyone surprised by the fact that there was a reaction to 9/11? No, of course not.

Because if you do not believe or cannot say clearly that Putin is a criminal, then there's a possibility that you may be an accomplice of his crimes, or a supporter. — Olivier5

I actually agree with this. I myself have tried -- maybe failed -- to communicate that. I wonder at what point do we get past it to the point where it's no longer a "possibility"? The argument or evidence I give for the NATO factor, for example, may be completely wrong -- but it's strange to get accused of supporting a tyrant for putting it forward.

It’s like me saying: I can enjoy pizza and still recognise the awful amount of calories it contains. — neomac

OK, I guess so -- sure.

In other words, there might be a strong link between a regime of human rights under a certain government and the awful foreign policy of that government which is undeniably hard to swallow once you realise it. — neomac

They may exist simultaneously, yes. Here in the US, for example, we're a wealthy country and enjoy many freedoms. We have public education, social security, freedom of speech, a fairly clean environment, and (from what I see) generally friendly, hard working, loyal people. Yet the foreign policy of our government (not to mention domestic policy) is often horrendous. That's not a condemnation of the people of the US. These things exist side-by-side.

Now I imagine somebody like you at that time saying: “I condemn the Confederates for this war, and I also condemn my federal government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of ‘picking a side’ is strange”. — neomac

We can get into the civil war another time if you like -- there's a lot to be said about it. But I see your point. However, the issue here isn't one of slavery. It's one of geopolitics.

Notice I don't condemn the US for helping Ukraine defend itself from invasion -- or Germany, or Britain. If I pick a side, I pick the side of the Ukrainian people being murdered and displaced. No question. I'm against war, nuclear weapons, NATO, the Warsaw Pact (when it existed), etc.

But let me ask you: do you think Putin would have annexed Crimea and/or invaded Ukraine had the US not (1) pushed for NATO membership, (2) supplied weapons, and (3) conducted military training? I'm pretty sure you do think he would have. Fine. So what would be the rationale for doing so? To win back the territory of the Soviet Union? Putin himself said he thought it was a stupid idea. But what evidence convinces you of it?

This is simply trolling. — ssu

Not really. As I cited before:

To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

To say nothing of the fact that to conquer and incorporate all of Ukraine would have required far more troops and a much more aggressive strategy, which he had to know he couldn't do.

Perhaps the best indicator that Putin is not bent on conquering and absorbing Ukraine is the military strategy Moscow has employed from the start of the campaign. The Russian military did not attempt to conquer all of Ukraine. That would have required a classic blitzkrieg strategy that aimed at quickly overrunning all of Ukraine with armored forces supported by tactical airpower. That strategy was not feasible, however, because there were only 190,000 soldiers in Russia’s invading army, which is far too small a force to vanquish and occupy Ukraine, which is not only the largest country between the Atlantic Ocean and Russia, but also has a population over 40 million. Unsurprisingly, the Russians pursued a limited aims strategy, which focused on either capturing or threatening Kiev and conquering a large swath of territory in eastern and southern Ukraine. In short, Russia did not have the capability to subdue all of Ukraine, much less conquer other countries in eastern Europe.

Anyway -- I'm getting the hint that you're not up for this discussion. Fair enough.

The concept “anti-American” is an interesting one. The counterpart is used only in totalitarian states or military dictatorships, something I wrote about many years ago (see my book Letters from Lexington). Thus, in the old Soviet Union, dissidents were condemned as “anti-Soviet.” That’s a natural usage among people with deeply rooted totalitarian instincts, which identify state policy with the society, the people, the culture. In contrast, people with even the slightest concept of democracy treat such notions with ridicule and contempt. Suppose someone in Italy who criticizes Italian state policy were condemned as “anti-Italian.” It would be regarded as too ridiculous even to merit laughter. Maybe under Mussolini, but surely not otherwise.

Chomsky -- after 9/11, when he was accused of being "anti-American" because he talked about the motivations behind the attack. Emphasis mine.

It's not atypical. I don't really blame people for it -- it's a tough thing to talk about factually when people are being killed.

Putin is a war criminal and tyrant and I have no desire to live in Russia. I don't support or defend him any more than I support or defend Israel's atrocities or the US's atrocities or Al Qaeda's. It's good to understand the history and the context.

Clearly not everyone can do so without emotion.

I just want to talk about this stuff. — NOS4A2

This isn’t an interview. — NOS4A2

:up:

Concerning me, why do I side with the West? For the simple reason that in the West avg people could enjoy a level of rights and material well-being that I find evidently preferable than what I and like-minded people could get in authoritarian regimes. — neomac

One can enjoy the hard-fought rights of the US — freedom of speech, for example — and still recognize the awful foreign policy of the government.

I condemn Putin for this war, and I also condemn my government for its actions leading up to it. This idea of “picking a side” is strange.

Well you only say this because you’re a statist, blinded by statist indoctrination.

Statism. That’s the real enemy.

There— I just summed up this thread. And every one of his threads. One-trick pony.

It is interesting though to poke at this sentiment: Why must you be governed? — Baden

Eh, it’s the same nonsense dressed up in different clothes. Government bad. Individual good. Statism. Fruits of one’s labor. Taxes. :yawn:

All you have to do is look at the results: voting for and defending the likes of Donald Trump. The rest is just elaborate rationalizations.

Let it be a lesson to purveyors of voodoo economics.

In a televised address to the nation, Putin explicitly denied that Ukraine had ever had “real statehood,” and said the country was an integral part of Russia’s “own history, culture, spiritual space.

I would suggest reading that speech -- not a Time article about the speech.

Regardless, it's odd that we should take what Putin says seriously in this case, and yet ignore his warnings about NATO.

In any case:

To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine. For example, some emphasize that he said that Ukraine is an “artificial state“ or not a “real state.” Such opaque comments, however, say nothing about his reason for going to war. The same is true of Putin’s statement that he views Russians and Ukrainians as “one people“ with a common history. Others point out that he called the collapse of the Soviet Union “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Of course, Putin also said, “Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.” Still, others point to a speech in which he declared that “Modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia or, to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia.” But as he went on to say in that very same speech, in reference to Ukraine’s independence today: “Of course, we cannot change past events, but we must at least admit them openly and honestly.”

To make the case that Putin was bent on conquering all of Ukraine and incorporating it into Russia, it is necessary to provide evidence that first, he thought it was a desirable goal, that second, he thought it was a feasible goal, and third, he intended to pursue that goal. There is no evidence in the public record that Putin was contemplating, much less intending to put an end to Ukraine as an independent state and make it part of greater Russia when he sent his troops into Ukraine on February 24th.

In Mearsheimer's discourse, there are only two agents, the U.S. and Putin. — Paine

If you think this, then you're simply unfamiliar with Mearsheimer. This is false.

I reiterate: it's a stupid question.

"Governed," to the corporatist, is to be forever infantilized. Might as well be asking, "Why MUST you always need mommy around?"

That's the frame. And that's why it's stupid.

Whatever degree Putin was motivated to invade because of his perception of what NATO is doing does not confirm or deny other motivations. — Paine

Very true. But I’ve yet to see evidence of his imperial ambitions. Even with this invasion, the facts simply don’t align with it. We can discuss that if you’d like. But I’m not excluding it as a possibility— only that I’m unconvinced by that possibility. Another possibility is he's just an evil madman. I'm unconvinced by that too, incidentally -- although it may be true.

Saying that the Ukrainians should not be supported is a Putin talking point. — Paine

I think the Ukrainians should be supported.

Whatever game of Risk Mearsheimer is playing, it has nothing to do with the brutality being experienced by actual people. We are way past coulda, shoulda, woulda. — Paine

I’m not sure what this means. Why is he playing a game of Risk? I agree we’re past coulda woulda shoulda, but understanding the causes of this war is still relevant.

NATO isn't an existential threat to Russia, cultural or otherwise. — jorndoe

NATO expansion was seen as a threat to Russia, as they stated clearly for years. Whether it was “really” a threat isn’t relevant— they gave reasons, many times, and these reasons were no more ridiculous than the ones the US has claimed over the years.

The fact is that Russia had been saying, for years, that involvement in Ukraine, including the push for NATO membership, was a threat.

No wonder the Ukrainians sought NATO protection. — jorndoe

Was there a major Russian threat from 2000 to 2008? What was that threat?

Keep up. (It's a long thread.) — jorndoe

I’m not interested in childish remarks like this. Keep it respectful and stick to arguments or don’t bother with me.

I’d suggest reviewing what I’ve written and engage with that. Merely asserting NATO was no threat isn’t an argument.

Hanke is a joke.

That above is one big imperialist speaking. — ssu

I don't see it. He's not telling the truth about the referenda, of course.

None of this lends like slightest evidence to the accusations of imperialism. But if you want to ignore the historical record on this and go with the mainstream Western narrative, I won't fault you for it. It could turn out true, I suppose. The evidence speaks against it currently.

Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored.
— Mikie
On the contrary. Ukraine and Georgia aren't in NATO. — ssu

They were repeatedly ignored. The US and NATO continued on the same path they started in 2008, reiterating their stance multiple times, and deploying weapons and training in Ukraine.

Cuba never launched missiles into the US either. So by your logic, it was never a threat -- since it didn't happen.

even Germany was saying it won't happen. — ssu

When was Germany saying it won't happen? At the 2008 NATO summit? At the 2021 summit? In September of 2021, when the White House affirmed it would continue to support Ukraine's joining, and that "We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner"?

Or are you just referring to Scholz? Who apparently believes, as you do, that Putin is an imperialist?

Sorry, the facts remain the same even if Germany -- which nearly always bows to US power -- says that it was "not on the agenda." The documentary record says otherwise. Not to mention the weapons and training provided by the West to Ukraine, all in spite of consistent warnings from Russia.

The same is true of China, incidentally. There will eventually be a reaction if the US keeps pushing on Taiwan. Then I'm sure you'll retroactively accuse China of "imperialism," no?

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated.
— Mikie
NATO pushing? — ssu

Yes, as I've now demonstrated several times.

NATO is made of sovereign states, hence it's like the idea of EU pushing something. — ssu

You're just running out of things to say, apparently.

Earlier Yugoslavia/Serbia, later Iraq, Libya and Syria faced a threat from NATO. Not Russia. Russia has a nuclear deterrence, hence NATO will not attack it. — ssu

Oh, ok. I guess that settles it.

It's delirious to think NATO would be a threat to Russia as the organization attacking it. — ssu

:up: Cool.

NATO is an existential threat to Russian imperialism. — ssu

There's no evidence for Russian imperialism, actually. It's a false narrative. No one had accused Putin of imperial ambitions for 14 years -- and then suddenly that was the official story: imperialism.

Anything to deflect away from the fact that the US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian (and Georgian) membership, starting in 2008, which was clearly and consistently said by Russian to be a threat -- for years. Those statements and warnings were repeatedly ignored. Once there was finally a reaction, after 6 years, in Crimea, and a further 8 years in Ukraine, it's supposed to confirm the story. Sorry, but you're ignoring history and evidence.

Imagine during the Cuban Missile Crisis people saying that the US was overreacting, and that "it's delirious to think Russian involvement in Cuba is a threat to the US." Maybe they would have been right, but that's completely beside the point.

It is widely and firmly believed in the West that Putin is solely responsible for causing the Ukraine crisis and certainly the ongoing war. He is said to have imperial ambitions, which is to say he is bent on conquering Ukraine and other countries as well—all for the purpose of creating a greater Russia that bears some resemblance to the former Soviet Union. In other words, Ukraine is Putin’s first target, but not his last. As one scholar put it, he is “acting on a sinister, long-held goal: to erase Ukraine from the map of the world.” Given Putin’s purported goals, it makes perfect sense for Finland and Sweden to join NATO and for the alliance to increase its force levels in eastern Europe. Imperial Russia, after all, must be contained.

While this narrative is repeated over and over in the mainstream media and by virtually every Western leader, there is no evidence to support it. To the extent that purveyors of the conventional wisdom provide evidence, it has little if any bearing on Putin’s motives for invading Ukraine.

Mearsheimer

But Reagan said “government is the problem.”

End of discussion.

Another fruitful thread with the sociopathic corporatist.

Anyone else up for a game?

I’m guessing, with no evidence, that she hangs on and continues for some time. Take a page out of Boris’ playbook.

Watching “The Patient” on Hulu. Interesting premise— first few episodes seemed promising, but I’m quickly losing interest. I’m currently on the episode 8.

Fair enough. To each his own!

So this thread is just a guise for parroting Ayn Rand. Got it.

yet it looked like Chomsky was the dill from my vantage point! — invizzy

Then you either weren’t paying attention or you were clouded by prejudice towards Sam. I can’t see any way around it.

It’s as if you watched the Chomsky/William F Buckley conversation and came away believing Buckley looked good and Chomsky the “dill.” Come on.

It’s a stupid question. The better question is: why do we create governments?

Plenty of answers.

Why MUST you be governed? Why— WHY?

Don’t you want to be free from Big Brother? Yet you never choose freedom…you MUST go with being scrutinized, watched, collectivized. Why, why??

If only we could be more like John Galt.

Ukraine was neutral and there was large support for Ukraine being and staying neutral... until Russia made it's land grab and started this long war. — ssu

No. The US and NATO had been pushing for membership for years, as I’ve demonstrated. After repeating now several times, if you’re not interested in looking at what was said at NATO summits, by the White House, by Blinken, and by actions like providing weapons and training, then I’m not sure how else to proceed.

“Large support” from whom? There’s large support for a two state solution in Israel, too — in the international community. But that won’t happen, because Israel and the US reject it. The same here — Germany and others have said some reasonable things, but capitulate to the US nearly every time.

If you take away from the view what Russia has done and just focus on the US, you simply paint a biased picture which isn't truthful. — ssu

No one is denying what Russia did was wrong. I’m not just focused on the US. I’m talking about the very real threat Russia faced prior to 2022 and prior to 2014, which so far you have dismissed, ignored, or minimized. That’s not an unbiased picture either.

izing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.
— Xtrix

If you don't take into account the hostility and aggression of Russia, the territorial annexations and talk of Ukraine being an artificial country etc. then you are simply denying that Russia's actions here do matter. — ssu

There were no annexations in 2008, which is when this started — thanks to ridiculous moves by the Bush administration.

Of course Russian actions matter, but you’re mixing timelines. You denied Manuel’s assertion that there were repeated threats to Russia regarding NATO. That denial is unfounded.

Again I recommend reading the Bucharest summit transcripts.

Perhaps you don't understand political discourse. — ssu

:roll:

But it's members can surely de facto give that to Russia and had given that to Russia when it came to Ukraine. But this fact seems to evade you. — ssu

Russia does not have a NATO veto, de facto or otherwise. It managed to delay membership of Georgia and Ukraine, but the US and NATO continued pushing through weapons, training, and the promise of future membership — as was literally reiterated all the way up to the 2021 summit.

That fact seems to evade you.

NATO threat to Russia was very real, and supported by the facts — should we choose to look at them. Or we can go with our feelings.

Banned @Yohan for extreme flaming.

Ukraine wasn't let into NATO. Not for two decades. That is a fact. And extremely likely that would have continued because Russia could easily pressure this. Far more easily than making an all-out invasion on Ukraine. — ssu

It’s true that Ukraine wasn’t admitted, but for a reason: Russia objected strongly to it. Nevertheless, attempts kept being made, before and after Crimea and right up to Blinken’s remarks. The threat was very real — and it’s the threat we’re talking about and which you're minimizing. The “assurances” you refer to are just false— you’re overlooking events from 2008 onward.

Even up to the present year:

"They must understand that the key to everything is the guarantee that NATO will not expand eastward"
“if our proposals are rejected ... we will make a decision on how to ensure our security in a reliable way,” -- Lavrov, January 2022

This was indeed rejected, and Russia invaded Ukraine a month later. I already mentioned Blinken's response.

There were other threats also besides NATO membership, which we can get into. Weapons, military training, etc.

You deny that this is the main reason. I think it is the main reason. There are other reasons which we can talk about. Believing that the main reason is to "make Russia great again" doesn't have much evidence supporting it, but I'm interested in whatever you have.

How can territorial annexations be less important? — ssu

Less important than what?

I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.
— Xtrix
You should not be biased. — ssu

Silly comment. We're all biased. When I say biased here, it's a matter of emphasis. I put more emphasis on the US, because it's my country. It also happens to have contributed significantly to the war.

Understanding that people look differently at things doesn't mean that there cannot be objectivity. — ssu

Which is why I've given facts -- like the 2008 NATO summit, the 2021 NATO summit, the public statements by the White House in September of 2021 and by Secretary of State Blinken in January 2022. All part of the public record, all show exactly what Manuel had mentioned (and you disputed): repeated warnings from Russia ignored; the US pushing for NATO membership and involvement with Ukraine for years.

You do understand that attacking Ukraine on February 24th changed a lot? — ssu

It didn't change the historical record.

Did it? Really, look at that text you quoted.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia. — ssu

Yes, success in blocking it. What was being blocked?

And then that was in 2008. That it was said over fourteen years ago and again just proves my point. — ssu

And reiterated in June of 2021, which I quoted.

And Scholz made that statement THIS YEAR. — ssu

Blinken— far more importantly — made the statements I cited THIS YEAR as well.

This story that Putin was given “every assurance” is just false.

It was never was about NATO membership in the first place — ssu

What is it about, then? I’ve heard a number of stories about being anti-democracy, having imperial ambitions, and being an evil madman. But I don’t find any of that compelling, based on the facts. Maybe it’s true — But I think after years of saying the same thing, consistently, it’s no surprise that something would eventually happen.

The simple undeniable fact is that Putin could have prevented Ukraine's NATO membership with far less than attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Like what?

Hence it's bizarre to cling on to this idea that "NATO made Putin do it". — ssu

I’m not clinging to that idea — I think the evidence points in the direction that it’s the main factor, yes.

Anyway — you’re getting emotional, I think. Remember what I mentioned earlier: I’m not defending Putin, and I’m biased towards emphasizing the role of the US because it’s where I live.

Says the Trump-supporting corporatist. :yawn:

the exchange with Chomsky was cringeworthy. — I like sushi

Glad I wasn’t the only one who cringed. As a general fan of Harris, I was really disappointed. I was hopeful for a meaningful exchange, but Sam simply could not hear the answers Chomsky gave about American “intention” regarding Al Shifa.

Too bad.

Yes indeed. See above as well, from 2021 Summit.

So Putin had his assurances that Ukraine would not be in NATO prior attacking Ukraine. — ssu

Read the Joint Statement on the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership from September 2021. Doesn’t seem all that reassuring.

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

Also:

“There is no change, there will be no change,” Blinken said when asked whether the formal response delivered to Moscow includes any alteration to NATO’s “open door policy,” which states that membership in the alliance is open to any European country that is in a position to “contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area.”

https://news.yahoo.com/there-will-be-no-change-us-bats-down-russian-demands-in-ukraine-crisis-210222078.html

It is true.

Bush ago something years ago. Even if he would be a President for life in the US, it's not his decision. It is totally another thing for Ukraine to get into NATO. — ssu

It isn’t true. The NATO summit of 2008, for those that remember, made it very clear indeed:

The Kremlin realizes it doesn't have the power to force the West to reverse its recognition of Kosovo's independence or persuade Washington to drop its plan to deploy missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But Putin has had notable success in blocking NATO membership for its former Soviet neighbors — Ukraine and Georgia.

"Georgia's accession into NATO will be seen here as an attempt to trigger a war in the Caucasus, and NATO membership for Ukraine will be interpreted as an effort to foment a conflict with Russia," said Sergei Markov, a Russian parliament member with close links to the Kremlin.

Amid a litany of such threats from Moscow, some NATO members are reluctant to inflame tensions at the three-day summit that begins Wednesday in Bucharest.

On Monday, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said admitting the two countries to NATO was "not a matter of whether, but when." However, he said the launch of the membership process might be delayed at this week's gathering.

https://web.archive.org/web/20080410213408/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080331/ap_on_re_eu/russia_vs_nato_1

Georgia and Ukraine were denied membership because of Russian objections— Putin, remember, was invited to that summit.

From NATO summit 2021:

We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits.

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htm

None of this supports your claim. The US and NATO were pushing for Ukrainian membership long before Crimea. Manuel is right: the West ignored Russian warnings, over and over again.

In case it needs to be said yet again: this doesn’t justify Putin’s actions, and it doesn’t mean the US is the sole cause of the war. Let’s try to grow out of immediately jumping to those conclusions — and keep to the facts.

Russia has been mentioning Ukraine as a red line for decades. The West didn't listen.
— Manuel
No. Actually the West did. Ukraine wasn't going to go into NATO. Period.
But then Russia started to annex territories of Ukraine. — ssu

This isn’t true. NATO membership was being contemplated long before Crimea.