Sorry, Jorndoe, but that was an unhinged rant misrepresenting and/or snipping my points while making ridiculous and unfounded claims against them

I won't be reading or responding to your nonsense any further

Be well

, FYI, if you hover at the bottom of a post, you can click the three dots (•••) and then the flag (⚑), to report unhinged nonsense rants, whatever against the site guidelines. :up:

It is turned into anti-Russian propaganda when people start referring to "deportations" and "genocides", trying to draw not-so-subtle historical parallels. — Tzeentch

Is not the matter to attend to is whether these events are happening or not?

The Russians are employing the language of "not-so-subtle historical parallels." Are you promoting a nihilism where nobody is talking about anything?

Is not the matter to attend to is whether these events are happening or not? — Paine

Sure.

How does pre-emptively framing Russia's actions as genocide help in figuring out what is happening?

It doesn't, of course, and that's not what this is about. It's about demonizing Russia, and I expect better from the people on this forum.

The Russians are employing the language of "not-so-subtle historical parallels." Are you promoting a nihilism where nobody is talking about anything? — Paine

You would be the one promoting a cynical nihilism if your argument for why you should spread your propaganda is because the other side is doing it too.

It's about demonizing Russia, and I expect better from the people on this forum. — Tzeentch

And I for one expected better from this forum than endless obfuscation and lies in defense of a murderous dictatorship, but this is what we get.

. And yes, since those groups you mention provide no evidence, they are just pushing propaganda... — Lambert Strether

UN and Amnesty International? I think that does it for you.

I won't be reading or responding to your nonsense any further — Lambert Strether

I think for a troll like you, that might be very useful for everybody to disregard your nonsense.

And the endless obfuscation and lies in defense of a murderous dictatorship has been those made for Zelensky and his--and the previous Poroshenko--regime, which has murdered Russian Ukrainians of the Donbass through shellings and torture-murders by its Azov Nazi battalion, not to mention its outlawing the Russian Orthodox church, all opposing political parties, and executions of prisoners of war

And I for one expected better from this forum than endless obfuscation and lies in defense of a murderous dictatorship, but this is what we get. — Olivier5

One has to remember that there's a war going on. The purpose isn't even to have a discussion, the purpose is just to repeat the position, however delirious it is, again and again. In hope that genuine participants would leave.

. And yes, since those groups you mention provide no evidence, they are just pushing propaganda...
— Lambert Strether
UN and Amnesty International?


Yes, the UN has already admitted to lying about Russia supposedly taking Viagra to rape Ukrainian women and Amnesty said nothing about genocide and has proven to be biased against Russia this whole war....although they have been highly critical of Zelensky's regime and the Azov Nazis in the past

And since we each clearly consider each other to be trolls, we should not continue discussing any further. I certainly won't read any more of your posts

The purpose isn't even to have a discussion, the purpose is just to repeat the position, however delirious it is, again and again. In hope that genuine participants would leave. — ssu

A fine bit of projection. :ok:

I've seen it happen.

The most obvious and clear case (and totally separate from this issue) was many years ago when there was a classic ponzi scheme in my country. Once the scheme was up and they didn't make payments anymore, naturally the criminals had to distance themselves from the upcoming criminal inquiry. Hence some people had a genuine motive for making people to wait before contacting the police, believing that it was only technical glitch that would be restored. And hence normal financial threads went haywire: anyone stating the obvious, that this was a ponzi scheme, got immediately attacked and ridiculed and the first sites that reported the ponzi scheme got a huge amount of shit poured on them. Volume is of a quality of it's own, especially on a discussion forum and in the social media.

What surprised me was just how easily the discussion forums were changed, but then again, there was only a few sites here where economic and financial things were discussed. Hence a few people can do wonders.

The case above was quite obvious. But when you venture into politics, it's different and obviosly many do hold the views, but still the same mechanism can work.

Volume is of a quality of it's own — ssu

Comrade Stalin said that, I think. Quantity has a quality all its own. Very true. Boethius used to write volumes.

Naturally any lengthy discussion needs different views and opinions. And many have also engaged in other philosophical debates (and joined the forum earlier, not being invited for some reason). However in some cases (as with this one) the arguments are so fantastic, the conspiracy so vast and enormous, it's really not worth to continue the discussion.

Russia says it is extremely concerned by Ukrainian missile downed over Belarus
^{— Jake Cordell, Kevin Liffey · Reuters · Dec 27, 2022}

This is an incident that causes extreme concern, not only for us, but for our Belarusian partners. — Dmitry Peskov

:D Meanwhile, Kyiv is extremely concerned about 1000s of missiles/drones having bombed (and continue to bomb) Ukraine regularly, leaving behind destruction (and deaths).

As far as I recall (unreliable), three stray missiles have originated from Ukrainian anti-missile/drone efforts, in each of Poland, Moldova, Belarus, though I'd sort of expect more that haven't been found (yet).

While stray missiles certainly is a concern, it looks like the Kremlin is attempting to divert attention. Not sure if they're trying to goad Belarus, though a more active Belarusian role would be in their interest.

2022 Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure
^{— Wikipedia · ongoing}

National Bank: Ukraine’s GDP to fall by one third in 2022; Russian attacks on energy system imperil economy
^{— Dinara Khalilova · Kyiv Independent via Yahoo News · Dec 27, 2022}

Michael McFaul, former ambassador to Russia, now Professor at Stanford, recently gave a lecture: "Explaining the Causes and Consequences of Putin’s Invasion of Ukraine"



His main thesis: "It's democratic expansion, not NATO expansion that has created this tension between Putin and the west and Putin and Ukraine."

Not much new for most of us here, but one of the arguments that he gives in support of this thesis is that relationships between Putin's regime and the West weren't always that hostile. What's more, NATO expansion wasn't much on the agenda until very recently - when there actually was no cause to raise this as a concern, since Ukraine wasn't going to be admitted to NATO any time soon, if ever. He recalls that in all the high-level talks where he was present (he was ambassador during Obama's administration) the expansion of NATO was hardly ever brought up.

McFaul is an avowed Russia-hater who has been banned from Russia and is a close friend of Zelensky's whom he hosted at Stanford. So his unfounded opinion--his own arguments are not support for his own thesis--doesn't carry much weight. It is a fact that NATO expanded way beyond Germany when they promised Russia they wouldn't, Zelensky announced his intention for Ukraine to join NATO, and America refused to take Ukraine's joining off the table. Russia and Putin had great reason to feel threatened; the US certainly would if Russia put loads of weapons into Mexico pointed at the US

McFaul also recently and famously said lying is part of diplomacy, so his credibility and veracity are not high level

You would be the one promoting a cynical nihilism if your argument for why you should spread your propaganda is because the other side is doing it too. — Tzeentch

I merely pointed out that both sides are making "not-so-subtle historical parallels" after you characterized that such language proved a statement was propaganda.

I don't share your view that the incidents being reported are only propaganda. If they are fabrications, that would be a terrible lie, as consequential as it would be if the Russians are correct that the massacre at Bucha was a staged photo op. Hopefully, investigations will bring more light to such incidents.

I don't share your view that the incidents being reported are only propaganda. — Paine

That's not my view.

Objective reporting is fine. Framing is propaganda.

It's the difference between speaking of displaced civilians or of genocides and deportations.

I hope and assume you're smart enough to tell the difference.

Why make it a matter of my capacity? That is pure troll.

His main thesis: "It's democratic expansion, not NATO expansion that has created this tension between Putin and the west and Putin and Ukraine." — SophistiCat

Agreed. NATO is neither here nor there. The reason Putin panicked is his fear of the people.

Putin uses New Year address for wartime rallying cry to Russians
^{— Jake Cordell, Kevin Liffey · Reuters · Dec 31, 2022}

• Blunt address on main family festival puts war centre-stage
• Putin casts war as fight for survival that requires sacrifices
• Russia is "defending our people and our historical territory"
• President accuses West of provoking conflict — Summary

Nothing new I guess, that's what he wants others to hear

• Nazis
• West out to destroy Russia
• existential fight
• historical territory (Ukraine)
• preserve Russia's greatness and independence
• call for nationalism

So, naught towards reconciliation/peace, more like the opposite :/

The point wasn't that it couldn't happen. The point was that you've given no credible reason to apply the notion to one 'side' and not the other. The pro-US position you and others espouse here is repeated no less fervently, no less hopeful that contrary voices will simply leave, no less seeking to dominate the space of discourse with a single narrative. You've all employed precisely the same tactics (if not worse) labelling any dissenting opinion as 'pro-Russian', dismissing sources other than your preferred ones as 'biased', treating views as 'beneath response' to try and maintain a sense that only your opinions are the 'serious' ones. These are all pretty much the standard tactics you describe.

I see you refer to the oft repeated John Mearsheimer argument. It has been championed by many commenters on this thread. For me, the most cogent challenges to his view come from writers Jan Smoleńsk and Jan Dutkiewicz. Their article in The New Republic ends with:

Of course, there is no single Eastern European voice and we do not pretend to ventriloquize it. Nor do we offer our own prescriptions; better ones than we could offer have already been given by the Ukrainian, Lithuanian, and Polish left. But any analysis of the current conflict needs to get past a framework that only gives voice and agency to the West and to Russia and start listening to Eastern Europeans, especially since it is Eastern Europe that will be dealing with the repercussions of the current war for years to come.

Here is an article from an author critical of NATO after working there:
Myth 03: ‘Russia was promised that NATO would not enlarge’
He addresses particular points of Mearsheimer's argument. The Chatham House authors are interesting because many have had long experience in commerce and policy in the region.

It's unsurprising that some experts support the US's position. It would be positively alarming if every expert on the planet opposed their actions.

So all we have is some experts supporting one narrative and some experts supporting another. The only matter for debate then is why you believe one and not the other.

It can't be persuasiveness, unless you want to set yourself up as being even more expert that the experts such that you can judge between them on the merits of the arguments.

So what is it that draws you toward these two?

Did you read the articles?

Did you read the articles? — Paine

Yes. I expect Mearsheimer has too. Since he hasn't reneged on his position I assume there remains room for expert, informed disagreement. Have I missed some response from those maintaining the contrary position?

I just realized that I had not provided a link to the first article. I edited to fix. Here it is again: https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

What makes sense to me in both articles is that the simplicity of there being only a U.S. position or not leaves out important parts of how the war developed. The criticism of the U.S. is fair on many levels but it often becomes too U.S centric in itself. Everything between Washington and Moscow becomes flyover country. So, the following paragraph points to an element studiously avoided in Mearsheimer's argument:

This is crucial when it comes to understanding the current war. However tempting it might be to analyze it in terms of a proxy war between NATO and Russia, Ukraine is an active participant in this historical process. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, Ukraine several times attempted to assert and defend its westward course, including in 2004 and in 2014, both times to great resistance on the part of the Kremlin. There is no point in denying that the West actively intervened in this. But so did Russia.

Beyond not accepting the zero sum game of the Great Powers argument, the merit of Lough's approach is that he considers developments between Europeans left out of the U.S. centric narratives. He also raises the question of how promises made to the USSR relate to one of the nations that appeared after it dissolved. I don't know if Mearsheimer every expressly addressed that.

Everything between Washington and Moscow becomes flyover country. — Paine

That's because it is.

Besides Washington and Moscow, the only thing that matters is the performance of the Ukrainian military. There isn't any other actor worth mentioning. The Ukrainian people have been given a choice - fight or surrender. That's all the influence they have in this war.

That doesn't stop other actors from trying to appear important, though. The European Union has certainly elevated that into an art, tanking their own economy with sanctions that are apparently not even hurting Russia.

He also raises the question of how promises made to the USSR relate to one of the nations that appeared after it dissolved. — Paine

Kind of hard to imagine a serious scholar making that argument, but alas there it is.

Russia and the USSR occupy roughly the same land mass. They share roughly the same core strategic interests.

Those promises were made to the USSR to acknowledge their legitime security concerns and thereby promote peace and stability. The way they relate to Russia today depends on how eager we are for conflict and war with Russia.

Lough is putting the cart before the horse here in a way that is almost child-like.

Which particular statement of Lough's are you referring to? Or are you only responding to my description of it as a point of interest?

The Ukrainian people have been given a choice - fight or surrender. That's all the influence they have in this war. — Tzeentch

Many of them have expressed that as their choice. Your version of them as soulless puppets is as dismissive of their agency as any version of colonial right you charge being exerted by other states upon them.

Your version of them as soulless puppets... — Paine

If you want people to take you seriously here, you'll need to take the strawmanning down several notches.

... is as dismissive of their agency as any version of colonial right you charge being exerted by other states upon them. — Paine

It's not a matter of agency. It's a matter of power, which they have comparatively little. It's unfortunate, but that's the way the world works.

At this point Ukraine is turning into the next Vietnam. You may make of that what you will.