Since @ssu and @Christoffer seem so keen on ascribing to me positions I don't hold, I thought I'd make a post here to easily refer to.

I think the recent invasion of Ukraine was caused mostly by Putin's autocratic desire for a Russian empire.

I think that's also the least interesting and least important cause.

It's the least interesting because no one should be surprised by it, he's been saying as much for years.

It's the least important because none of us have any influence at all in Russia. The Russians themselves are doing a sterling job of opposing the war from their end.

Our concern is the extent to which our actions, mistakes, and systematic policies have lead to this. How, faced with a despotic leader intent on empire building, we did absolutely fuck all about it, but rather just made the situation worse by warmongering and sabre-rattling.

Our concern is the institutions which benefit from war, regime change, post-war reconstruction and a broken economy on its knees seeking loans to which we can attach punitive terms.

But he isn't delusional!!! I'm not sure where you see the illogicality here. — ssu

Do I need explain it? In the article I cited, Mearsheimer clearly advocates exactly the positions you've been vehemently denying the validity of. Either he's an expert who we should listen to or he isn't. You can't have both. Did you even read the quotes?

What is so hard to understand that Russia see's the West as a threat AND has territorial aspirations on the territory of it's neighbors? — ssu

Nothing. What makes you think I find that hard to understand?

if I say that this war is Putin's fault, it doesn't mean that the US or NATO has done everything right. — ssu

Well, it quite literally does. In what sense could the US and NATO possibly have done anything 'wrong' if there's no fault attached to their doing so?

What is false to think that all this is happening because of the US wants to enlarge NATO and nothing else. — ssu

Yep. Which is why I have never said anything like that.

I responded to the way you fragment out points out of context of a whole argument. This is a way to effectively strawman through formatting. I don't fall for that. — Christoffer

I've literally no idea what you're talking about. You said it's all Putin's fault, you said loads of experts agreed. I just want the citations from those experts. It's that simple.

published papers as a source that has much greater unbias than anything else — Christoffer

I see. So does Harvard Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt writing in the Journal of Foreign Relations count? He says...

The great tragedy is this entire affair was avoidable. Had the United States and its European allies not succumbed to hubris, wishful thinking and liberal idealism, and relied instead on realism’s core insights, the present crisis would not have occurred. Indeed, Russia would probably never have seized Crimea, and Ukraine would be safer today. The world is paying a high price for relying on a flawed theory of world politics.

Since the dissolution of the USSR, Ukraine has had pro-Russia prime ministers until Viktor Fedorovych Yanukovych was ousted after 10 years in office in what was widely seen as a ‘color revolution,’ engineered by the US.

If Americans could worry that much about a tiny country like Nicaragua, why was it so hard to understand why Russia might have some serious misgivings about the steady movement of the world’s mightiest alliance toward its borders?

Which are exactly the points I and others have been making. Not that the Mearsheimer article wasn't also a published journal paper already, which you conveniently ignored.

You aren't making the argument that they share blame, you make the argument "it's the west's fault". — Christoffer

Where. Quote me making such an argument. I've asked politely for you to stop attributing positions to me without citation which I do not hold. Please desist. It's more than a little disingenuous for you to accuse me of strawmanning when you refuse to even quote me on positions you claim I hold.

I asked for sources that support your actual counterargument, you have not shown the connection — Christoffer

You seem to be the expert on what my argument is. Why don't you tell me how they relate? In fact I could take a break for a couple of days and you could continue arguing both sides by yourself.

Show me an instance where Jens Stoltenberg has done this towards Sweden and Finland. — Christoffer

Stephen Walt again...

The US seemed on a steady course to encircle Russia with its own version of ‘satellite’ states when the Bush administration nominated for NATO membership at the 2008 Bucharest Summit Georgia and Ukraine — states closest to Russia in ethnicity and even culture. (Stalin was from Georgia while Ukraine, whose official language is Russian, was part of the USSR from 1922 until the end of the Cold War, and the site of its nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles.)

As Mary Elise Sarotte writes in the Journal of Foreign Affairs

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. … The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of ‘pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.’ …

And

At a summit in Helsinki, Clinton promised to give Yeltsin four billion dollars in investment in 1997, as much as the U.S. had provided in the five years prior, while also dangling W.T.O. membership and other economic inducements. In return, Russia would effectively allow unencumbered NATO enlargement. Yeltsin worried that these measures could be perceived as ‘sort of a bribe,’ but, given Russia’s empty coffers and his uphill prospects for reëlection, he relented.

And German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: ““We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”

In Georgia, the State news reported that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called on Georgia to use every opportunity to move closer to the Alliance and speed up preparations for membership

And none of this is even to mention the undeclared deals which we'd be unbelievably naive to think didn't take place knowing what we do about similar dealings in other spheres.

Clearly NATO does not simply wait for requests and allow stable nations in regardless of strategic advantage.

You still don't haven't provided a clear "other reason" or "cause" for Putin's invasion. Your sources are about the risk of influence of neonazis in Ukraine around 2014. How does that in any shape or form relate to Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2022 or his reasons for aggressions over the course of his rule of authoritarian power? — Christoffer

@StreetlightX has already provided dozens of expert views on how these issues relate to Putin's invasion, I see no sense in simply repeating them, but since you're specifically asking about post 2014 NATO, I'll add that German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier after NATO manoeuvres in Poland said of them

What we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation further through saber-rattling and warmongering. Whoever believes that a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is mistaken. We are well-advised to not create pretexts to renew an old confrontation

How so? — Isaac


Because it's a fucking research institute on the subject of Russia and Putin. — Christoffer

So? You think that's the only source? Plenty of other equally reputable and well-informed sources have been used countering your position.

Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused. — Isaac


It was a reversal of your argument to show you your own rhetoric. — Christoffer

I don't care if was a ...whatever the hell that means.. If you want to assign a position to me, quote me saying it. It's simple courtesy.

Because it balances the facts. — Christoffer

'Multi-reason'. You gave one.

Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt? — Isaac


Where have you connected Putin's guilt to be partly the west's? — Christoffer

What's that got to do with anything. You ascribed a position to me, I simply asked for the courtesy of being quoted. You cannot seriously say I hold a position because of a failure to state the opposite of it.

Fragmentational dilution of my writing like this becomes a childish way of discussing a topic. I won't fall for cheap tricks like this, ugh... — Christoffer

What? I just asked you for sources to back up the claim that "this is all Putin". If you were adding a little rhetorical hyperbole, that's absolutely fine, I've no problem with that, but then your response doesn't make any sense because I asked you about your treatment of the portion of blame the US and Europe must shoulder. If your phrase "this is all Putin" was merely rhetorical hyperbole, then the question remains unanswered. Why shoot down all the attempts to talk about the extent to which the US and Europe are culpable?

The only reason I could make sense of is that you thought they shouldered no blame at all (hence my taking your "this is all Putin" at face value). If you don't think that, and you agree they share some of the blame, then why the constant shooting down of any discussion about it?

Wait, are you using opinion pieces as sources? Not factual sources for your own inductional reasoning? — Christoffer

Yes. I'm not an historian, nor a military strategist, so I don't consider myself to have the necessary skills to interpret raw historical documents and military pronouncements in context. I defer to experts to do that.

If you're gonna use sources to argue a point, it becomes extremely skewed if the sources are merly opinion pieces or far-leaning political voices. — Christoffer

Seriously? Are you actually going to try and pull off an 'all your sources are biased, but mine a perfectly objective' argument? How naive are you? All sources are biased, the trick is to learn what the bias is. I'm biased in favour of finding fault with my government and its allies. I've explained why I'm biased in that direction - they're the governments I have some little influence over and even if I'm wrong, it's still useful to keep them on their toes. So yes, all my sources are biased in that direction. Bias doesn't equate to lies, it's just a filter through which facts are viewed.

Has nothing to do with the events today or the acts of Putin. — Christoffer

That argument has been made elsewhere. You simply asked me for my sources so I supplied them.

What is your point? What is your actual argument? — Christoffer

Fuck's sake. I've repeated the argument a dozen times at least. Any solution involves the US so the US's prior behaviour in these kinds of events is relevant to a weighing up of how to use them and it's important that they are made as aware as possible that we're watching them, that they can't get away with the sort of shit they tried last time.

Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine — Christoffer

See now you being obtuse. Are you now saying that there are no other reasons than Putin for the invasion? If so, then my request for sources is completely reasonable. You've provided no experts at all claiming that there's no other cause of this invasion than Putin himself.

The independent media outlets broadcasting live news with experts from the IRES Institute for Russian and Eurasian Studies, have a bit more validity to them than your biased opinion pieces that you linked to. — Christoffer

How so?

Like this: — Christoffer

That's an article from 2017 and all it shows is Putin's objectives, which no-one here has argued against. Your point is that "this is all Putin". again, without the 'all' claim, you're just saying that some of the cause is Putin's ideology, a claim absolutely no-one is disputing. I'm asking why you're pouring cold water on attempts to examine the role of the US and Europe. If you're not arguing that they have no part to play, then I can't see why you'd want to oppose discussion of that role.

Then, if going with articles that are less opinion pieces — Christoffer

How is that less of an opinion piece? It's literally presenting an (informed) opinion.

Since we all know that it is the latter, — Christoffer

We don't 'all know' that at all. Are you seriously presenting the theory that NATO does absolutely nothing but sit back and wait for counties to join. That no diplomacy, deal-making, financial incentives, political alliances or cross-border events play any part at all in the process?

What is the advantage of blaming them for everything like you do? — Christoffer

Either quote me blaming them for everything, or refrain from ascribing me views I've never espoused.

You aren't interested in any balanced view or multi-reason answer. — Christoffer

To remind you...

this is all Putin. — Christoffer

Explain in what way that's a "balanced view or multi-reason answer". Or for that matter, when you say...

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments... — Isaac


Neither connected to Putin's reasoning for invading Ukraine, other than you falling for his propaganda machine. — Christoffer

If none of those factors come into play, then what exactly are the 'multi-reasons' to which you refer?

The major thing that you never ever seem to understand is that I've never said anything of Europe or US being "innocent". I'm just saying that your invented guilt of "the west" — Christoffer

How can the guilt of the west be invented if they are not innocent?

You simply inflate the guilt of the west as being more influential and dismiss any notion of Putin's guilt. — Christoffer

Again, please don't just assign views to me without sources. Where have I dismissed any notion of Putin's guilt?

What are Putin's intentions based on the history of his rule and rise to power? — Christoffer

I largely agree with you about Putin's intentions. I don't see the point in spelling that out any further.

Why does he actually feel threatened by NATO? — Christoffer

I gather it's a combination of a distaste for democracy and an unwillingness to cede strategic advantage which could be leveraged to obstruct economic expansion.

In practice, how does NATO expand itself? — Christoffer

A combination of the extant global threats, diplomacy, political deals and direct advocacy.

Does Ukraine not have rights to its own independence? — Christoffer

Yes

Is Russia ruled by many or just one man (Putin), and if not one man, who shares the power and how? — Christoffer

No. I can't see how that could even be possible, let alone plausible. I suspect, like most tyrants he's surrounded by a cabal of associates who benefit from mutual objectives.

Ha. Brilliant.

The fantasy that the US is responsible for everything on earth — Olivier5

Putin managed to install his own extreme-right nationalist puppet not in Kiev but in Washington — Olivier5

I'll just leave that there, further comment being unnecessary I think.

Again. Just more presentation of the alternate possibility that the US were barely involved and opposed to the far-right elements.

Can we just save ourselves loads of time here.

I'm aware of that possibility and accept that it is entirely plausible. There's no need to keep spending your (no doubt precious) time explaining exactly how it is plausible. I already agree that it is.

What I'm asking you (fifth time now) is why, given the two plausible scenarios, you seem to think it vitally important that the one in which the US are innocent is given such representation and the one in which America is culpable is swiftly countered at every mention. That's the key point here.

How about then reading what for example John Mearsheimer so well said far earlier: — ssu

John Mearsheimer in 2014

the United States and its European allies
share most of the responsibility for the crisis. The taproot of the trouble is NATO enlargement, the central element of a larger strategy to move Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit and integrate it into the West. At the same time, the EU’s expansion eastward and the West’s backing of the pro-democracy movement in Ukraine—beginning with the Orange Revolution in 2004—were critical elements, too.

The new government in Kiev was pro-Western and anti-Russian to the core, and it contained four vhigh-ranking members who could legitimately be labeled neofascists. Although the full extent of U.S. involvement has not yet come to light, it is clear that Washington backed the coup

Putin’s actions should be easy to comprehend. A huge expanse of flat land that Napoleonic France, imperial Germany, and Nazi Germany all crossed to strike at Russia itself, Ukraine serves as a bu*er state of enormous strategic importance to Russia. No Russian leader would tolerate a military alliance that was Moscow’s mortal enemy until recently moving into Ukraine. Nor would any Russian leader stand idly by while the West helped install a government there that was determined to integrate Ukraine into the West.

So which is it? Is Mearsheimer an expert whose greater knowledge we should defer to, or not?

Surely even you can see that trying to claim him as an expert when he agrees with you and delusional when he doesn't is utterly absurd.

What is it about my question that no-one wants to answer it? It seemed quite simple. What is the advantage in exculpating the US and Europe? You've answered a question about your objectives with a history lesson.

I don't deny anything you've said is possibly true. It's also possibly true that the US had a even greater role then you suggest. That theory isn't overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary, so it remains possible. They've done it loads of times before, so it remains plausible also.

So why do seek to pour cold water on the theory every time it's mentioned? I've been quite clear on my objective. I've been quite clear why, in the face of sketchy evidence, I'm erring on the side of assuming ill intent on the part of those governments. I've asked you four times now why you're so keen on excusing them of that intent, but you keep dodging the question.

As to...

What is the link to the present situation in Ukraine? — ssu

... I've already explained that too. Twice. There's not a single solution being proposed which doesn't involve America. If, in 2014, America were so keen to oust Yanukovich they were willing to get into bed with Neo-Nazis and far-right extremists, then it shows that their motives were just anti-Russian, not pro-humanity (as if we needed any further evidence that American intentions are not pro-humanity!). And the same people are still in positions of power today. Showing that the main strategy motivating one of the potential peace brokers is simply the opposition to one of the parties to that process is highly significant.

Whatever we think of Putin's methods for addressing it (we roundly condemn them I assume), the conflict remains. War or no war, there is a conflict between Russian interests and European/US interests in the region. If that conflict is not resolved, then resolving the current war will be nothing more than a temporary ceasefire. As you so rightly pointed out (to completely deaf ears it seems) Russia was already at war with Ukraine, to the cost of over 14,000 lives. A fact that the Western media seem only too willing to paint over in favour of the Disney version (bad man suddenly invades united, peace-loving nation of brave heroes).

The solution here requires solving the conflict, not just the war, and the extent to which either of the parties to that conflict is dishonest about their intent is exactly the extent to which any resolution will fail and the bloodshed will continue.

The US clearly has a strategic interest in Ukraine. It clearly has an anti-Russia agenda. Negotiating with Putin from a platform asserting that he's a madman with no legitimate strategic interests at all, and America are as pure as the driven snow with only the poor Ukrainian civilians in their minds is doomed to fail, and the result of a failed negotiation is more people dying.

The tragedy is that people (exemplified by@Christoffer here, but rife in the Western media) see playing out their Top Gun fantasies as more important than achieving a settlement which actually prevents conflict.

What citation? I'm not writing to publish an essay here. — Christoffer

The citations you should have provided to back up claims like

this is all Putin — Christoffer

...especially if you're then going to go on to repeat over and over things like...

You still don't know what is going on right now. — Christoffer

I've been refreshing my own knowledge of everything related to all of this and through this conflict, I have two-three news outlets going simultaneously while deep diving and researching any development that happens. — Christoffer

Right. So it shouldn't be the least trouble to provide one of these sources concluding that

this is all Putin — Christoffer

I could ask of you the same, where are your sources for the conclusions you make? — Christoffer

I cite them as I go. You can look back over my posts, here's the main sources I was using for analysis of the US and European involvement

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/the-left-vladimir-putin-russia-war-ukraine
https://www.dsausa.org/statements/on-russias-invasion-of-ukraine/
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

My sources for claims about far-right activism and US support for it back in 2014 are here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659557 and here https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771

But you're the one who keeps talking about who's to blame for all of this, so who is it? — Christoffer

A number of complex interrelated factors, one of which is US foreign policy, one of which is EU central banking, one of which is arms industry lobbying, one of which is the influence of multinational financial instruments...

As long as your media outlets are independent trustworthy sources, you can listen to a lot of eastern political scientists confirm exactly what I'm talking about here. — Christoffer

No I can't because you haven't cited any. A search for "a lot of eastern political scientists" on Google remained frustratingly unspecific I'm afraid.

So I ask again, who's to blame? If not Putin and his embarrassment and will to rebuild the Russian empire? If not Putin and his delusional skewed image of the rest of "the west" — Christoffer

Why must it be " ...not Putin"? Can you really not even conceive of more than one factor?

...

And you've still not answered my very simple question.

What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour? — Isaac

So, you basically mean that whenever you hear someone actually saying it, you can brush them off as being just uninformed — Christoffer

I don't know, I haven't yet had the opportunity since you've offered zero citations to support the notion. Cite one of these experts and we'll see if I'm inclined to 'brush them off'.

Who's to be blamed when a rampage killer shoots up a mall? — Christoffer

As you allude to - the killer, poverty, social exclusion, gun control, parenting, schools, video games, erosion of social value, government deafness, corporate dehumanising...

And what would we discuss in such cases? Not the killer themselves, there's nothing we can do about that, some people just go wrong. We'd discuss everything else... The bits we can actually do something about.

If you want to create some fabrication where none of those factors apply then you're simply asking "if the only person to blame is the killer, then who's to blame?" That's just definitional, the question is whether this is such a case.

But we're out of sync. I've answered your question but you've not answered mine. What is the advantage of exculpating the US and Europe? Even if they're completely innocent (which has yet to be shown), what is gained by so passionately ensuring their innocence is made clear to all? They're all big boys, they can handle a bit of misapportioned culpability, so why the fervour?

this is all Putin. This is part of the Russian tradition of being assholes to whomever they think is their possession. To argue that "the west" pushed Putin to this is a fucking delusional point of view. — Christoffer

A position literally no informed commentator holds.

There's debate around just how much culpability the US and Europe have. There's disagreement as to whether the risk was worth it.

But literally no one takes the view that the situation arose entirely because of Putin and the US an Europe played no part.

...

And you've not answered my question. What is the advantage? Let's say you're right, its all Putin's fault and were all delusional for pointing to any role the US and Europe played. Why would you need to fight back against that delusion with such passion? What does it achieve?

I'm quite happy blaming the US, even if I'm wrong this time. It's a good side to err on because it makes the governments I have influence over more careful, less reckless about any possible future complicity.

But, you want to make absolutely sure they are absolved of all blame here. You're passionate about ensuring any attempt to apportion blame to the US and Europe is quashed in the strongest possible terms.

Why?

At the moment, the crisis is in Ukraine and with Russia's, or rather, Putin's threat of nuclear launches. — Christoffer

So explain to me the advantage in exculpating the role of the US and Europe in catalysing this crisis? Russia is the main instigator, right. I think we agree. But that's not enough for you. All talk of the US and Europe's involvement must be exorcised. All blame must be placed on Putin, the madman who must be stopped at all costs. What gain does this polarisation serve?

When this crisis has been resolved or turned to more stability, there's plenty of time to continue working to fix everything else that's broken on this planet. — Christoffer

Really? "Plenty of time". Have you noticed any kind of trend in crises over the last few years? Was there "plenty of time" between Covid and Ukraine to discuss toxic American foreign policy? Was there "plenty of time" between the Islamic terror threat and Covid? Was there "Plenty of time" between Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and the rise of Islamic terrorism? When was the last crisis-free moment in which we all took a dispassionate look at American foreign policy without the threat of a world-shattering crisis to ensure naysayers can be painted as reckless fools willing to risk global annihilation?

Today it's Russia, yesterday it was Islamic terrorism, before that Saddam Hussein, Colonel Gaddafi... The existential threats painted as justifications for economic imperialism are an unbroken line in which Russia is just the latest.

I've consistently said that yes, the US meddled in revolution, but that the revolution basically happened because of internal developments in Ukraine. — ssu

Yes, I know. I'm asking you about the 'but...'. Why's it there?

I'll try to make it clear. There are some facts about which it seems we agree...

1. Legitimate grievances lead to a number of Ukrainians overthrowing the government
2. Some of these were Neo-Nazis and far-right activists unhappy with the governments recent favouring of Russian over US aid.
3. Most of the work was done by Ukrainians and would probably have happened anyway.
4. The US supported the far right factions. There's a suspicion, grounded on some evidence, that they lent more than just 'support'.
5. The Neo-Nazis and far right elements didn't last long in the Ukrainian government and now remain only in a few mayoral roles and one battalion of the armed forces.

Every time I mention (hype up, even) facts 2 and 4, you counter by pointing out facts 1, 3 and 5. This has been the pattern of discussion for the last few pages.

I'm emphasising facts 2 and 4, giving them as much rhetorical force as I can muster, because they relate to the role of my government (or its allies in this case), and they relate directly to the sort of 'aid' they might right now be considering giving Ukraine.

You keep pouring cold water on that rhetoric by emphasising facts 1, 3 and 5 because...?

The time to fireproof your house, my man, is either before or after, rather than during, a house fire. — 180 Proof

As our governments consider what to do to help the people of Ukraine is exactly the time to remind them that we're watching and won't stand for the sort of shit they pulled last time they "helped" Ukraine against Russia.

As I said to @ssu. @frank and the other detractors, I just can't understand this notion that because there's a war on we have to forget all about the wrongdoing of governments and the powerful, forget all about racism and anti-Semitism within the country being attacked and instead render the entire event in comic book form, with a single evil villain and a superhero to save the world.

The US and Europe are in the process of choosing how to help. I can't think of a better time to loudly shout about what has happened all the previous times they've "helped" and what we'd rather they did differently this time.

The worst thing I think we could do is further escalate the already powerful narrative that Putin is so evil he must be stopped at all costs because we know from bitter experience what some of the 'costs' the US and Europe are considering in that list.

If governments usually lie, there sometimes can be the rare occasion when the truth serves them and they will say the truth. In that case one should note that accepting this truth doesn't make you a supporter of their usual lies...sometimes it's obvious that the other (here Russia) is doing something that is totally wrong. That even many Russians are against. That it is stupid and likely extremely counterproductive and a tragedy. — ssu

Yep. I agree with both those sentiments.

But I just can't fathom your aim. — Isaac


How about that sovereign independent states should be left alone. Military force shouldn't be used. That countries ought not to first underwrite that they accept the borders and the territories of others and then brake on that promise. That there should be peace. — ssu

No your aim. In writing here the way you are. In so strongly rebutting anything I say which lays any blame at the US and Europe, so strongly denying any far-right issues in Ukraine.

All the above does is lay out why you think what Russia has done is bad, were all agreed on that. I'm asking why you're so opposed to laying any of the blame at the feet of the US and Europe.

Take the most contentious issue between us, the role of the far-right in Ukraine and America's part in supporting them. What is it you're aiming for in spending so much time insisting that the evidence for US involvement is sketchy, that the far-right have little influence now, that the Neo-Nazis are only a few in a large armed force...

Why underplay it? Why is it important to you everyone here is clear - there's only a few Neo-Nazis in the armed forces, they were only in government for a short time, and America's involvement is not proven?

I haven't denied any of those facts, I just haven't tempered my attack by highlighting them. I haven't done so because it means the attack loses some of its force. Its rhetoric.

But you, and others, have. Why? Why would you actively want an attack on US complicity to lose its force?

@ssu, @frank et al

Let me ask you, what's your aim here?

Mine's simple. I want to hold my government and its allies to account for their role in this, I want to make sure they don't get to play the white knight, saviours of the innocent.

The aim (of the attitude, not necessarily the actual post) is to make sure governments and the powerful know they can't just get away with their behaviour by getting everyone to look the other way, look at the big monster over there.

But I just can't fathom your aim.

To excuse government? To make sure only the strongest of evidence is sufficient to accuse them? Why would you do that?

Is it Truth™? Do you think you're warriors of truth, making sure that rightness prevails?

Is it just conservatism, not wanting to rock the boat? I've some sympathy with that, but the boat's well and truly capsising, surely?

Must they queue up, perhaps? Can we not condemn our governments until those with more crass records of oppression are roundly castigated? Is Putin really escaping castigation here though?

So what? What motivates this drive for such passionate defense of the already powerful?

You're sounding a little unhinged, to be honest. — frank

Well, it took less time than usual for the "anyone who disagrees with me must be insane" card. Conversation over then I guess.

You said this:

"For any that don't know, that's Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the anti-Semitic Svoboda party, later installed into power by the US."
— Isaac

It's not true and the articles you posted confirm that it's not true. What is the problem with admitting that you misspoke? — frank

Because I don't believe it's not true and I don't believe the articles I posted confirm it's not true. I don't require a bloodied dagger to hold my government and it's allies to account, it's quite sufficient for me that there's a suspicion of collusion and a long history of doing exactly that. I'm not going to tread on eggshells around the most powerful nation on earth lest I accidentally falsley accuse them.

I suggest if the US government are so concerned about being falsely accused of collusion by random internet posters, they should perhaps stop acting like sufficient shitheads to make such an accusation a likely conclusion to leap to.

Why on earth are you so concerned about their honour all of a sudden?

The US backed democracy adcocate groups and McCain stood beside somebody. That's your basis for saying the US put a nazi in power in Ukraine? — frank

Christ!

We're supposed to hold our governments to account, not treat them like well intentioned children.

Our governments should be terrified of us, every foot they put wrong should come back to haunt them.

We're not supposed to give them a friendly tut and say "I'm sure you're all doing your best, we'll just wait for the evidence to be a bit stronger before we so much as complain". When exactly do you think that evidence is going to come forward, what mechanism do you think is in place to ensure the full facts about government collusion come to light?

Or is it that you think it unlikely in its face. You can't think of any similar situations in which governments have colluded to install regimes sympathetic to their interests.

How would you deal with Putin holding his hand over the button of nuclear attacks? What's your solution? — Christoffer

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2022/feb/25/anti-war-protests-across-russia-in-pictures

Putin's not my head of government, he's not within my sphere of influence. I don't have a plan to deal with him, why on earth would I?

The main thing I've been trying to get across is that analysing the motives and strategies of entire populations from armchairs thousands of miles away is rife with pitfalls, the last thing we should be doing is escalating the situation with half-baked Hollywood storylines.

What happened in 2013-2014 was confusing and messy, but calling it a "coup" is tendentious and misleading. — SophistiCat

The protests led to the 2014 Ukrainian Coup, known in the West as the Revolution of Dignity, that overthrew the former government. — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan

That hotbed of radical extremism The Guardian at the time...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict

the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover

In the end, right after signing an accord with opposition representatives, for reasons that to this day are not entirely clear — SophistiCat

Except, of course that we can completely rule out a coup, apparently.

the West had little to do with how mass protests started, spread and escalated. I know this, because I was following those events — SophistiCat

Seriously? "I know this because I read about it". So no-one else has read about it?

Do you think the author here hadn't "read about it"?

https://jacobinmag.com/2022/02/maidan-protests-neo-nazis-russia-nato-crimea

...nor here...

https://theconversation.com/far-right-party-jeopardises-ukraines-path-to-democracy-23999

...or here...

https://www.channel4.com/news/kiev-svoboda-far-right-protests-right-sector-riot-police

..none of these journalists have "read about it" like you have. One wonders how they keep their jobs.

they followed the events, they fretted over who would take power after Yanukovych, they jockeyed for influence - because of course they would. — SophistiCat

So to what were they refering when Pyatt said

I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure the Russians will be working behind the scenes. ….Let me work on Klitchko

... the something they need to "do" would be what? More watching and innocent sideline commentary?

And what might Klitschko understand by...

“Our American friends promise to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see Nuland or someone from the Congress.” — email to Klitschko from Lithuanian minister prior to the uprising

...they're meeting for...?

And what would, on January 30, The State Department’s website announced Nuland’s upcoming travel plans that ”In Kyiv, Assistant Secretary Nuland will meet with government officials, opposition leaders, civil society and business leaders to encourage agreement on a new government and plan of action.” - a month before there was even official calls for one in Ukraine.

Not to mention the aid packages clearly tied to regime change as incentives, like the Billion dollars offered by the US after the coup, but not on the table before.

Or is suspicion not enough? What evidence would be good enough for you? Them just admitting it? A direct bank transfer with "to Ukraine, for ousting pro-Russian Government" written on it? At what level of apparent collusion are you wiling to entertain the theory, what would you need? Because all your naysaying is going to do is render any holding of the government to account toothless. Unless we can hold up the bloodied dagger, they're innocent as the driven snow?

Most likely a covert op by the US initially. Then an alliance of US troops with troops from European nations (not through NATO, but each nation's regular army) to seize the nuclear weapons and keep civil war from escalating. — Christoffer

And yet...

Nobody is treating the US as a savior. — frank

You asked me for a source. I gave it. — frank

No, I asked you for evidence. I respect you sufficiently to assume you have a source, as opposed to just making it up off the top of your head, I was asking for the documents/policies/events etc which rendered the conclusion, not the conclusion itself.

Putin's vision for Russia is as an independent regional power. He wants Russia to be a peer of America and China, under the umbrella of the UN. That's what he's steering his country toward.

He arrived at that vision after being rejected by both NATO and the EU. Under his rule, Russia has prospered by privatizing industry. A white collar middle class has emerged. But they're now heading into stagnation because they haven't been investing in future growth. — frank

Here you've just repeated the assertion. Seriously, must I wring blood from the stone just to get a few key facts?

Putin wants to rebuild the Russian empire (as opposed to just fight back against Western expansion) because...

So far all I've heard to finish that proposition is "...because said so" (ignoring the fact that he also said he was pushing back against Western expansion), or "...because some expert said so" (ignoring the fact that other experts have said otherwise).

What is you're seeing or reading that's got you convinced? What was the "coup de grâce" for you? What renders the alternatives so untenable? Surely not just that you read a book in which the author said so? There must be more meat to it than that, so what is it?

I’ll leave it to others to further hound you if they feel (possibly rightly) that you haven’t sufficiently corrected yourself, or repented. — jamalrob

Of course.

But perhaps four days ago when I actually made the comment to these exact same group of participants might have been a more appropriate time to do so as opposed to four days later when someone (quite rightly) points out the offense-taking opportunities it is fecund with!

The problem is that you appeared to be labelling all the Ukrainians resisting Russian attack as neo-Nazis, which is stupid and offensive, even if you were just trying to redress the balance. — jamalrob

Yes, I realise that. Not my best judged response, but I did make it clear in the very next post, so why it's still being used in lieu of any substantial argument about the topic is beyond me.

Anyone who wants to univite me from their dinner party arrangements for fear of further ill-judged comments would be quite within reason doing so.

But anyone who wants to fling mud at every position I've taken here on the basis of one porly judged comment, clarified within minutes, has misunderstood the nature of internet discussion boards.

Look back in the thread, I already gave a summary. — frank

You've given no such summary to me. I don't read all the posts. If you've already summarised you might just link to the post. Otherwise, as I said, the fact that someone who agrees with you wrote as much in a book is pretty much the minimum threshold I expect for someone commenting on the matter, not the conversation-ending coup de grâce you treated it as.

You don't need to pretend any such thing. — Amity

Then what exactly do you think is happening here? It's coming across as a concerted effort to render all mention of the far right problem in Ukraine and it's relevance to the history of the conflict as off limits. Pointing out there are Neo-Nazi elements is "disgusting", noting how US and UK willingness to ignore it for political gain gave Putin ammunition makes me an apologist for the invasion.

So to what extent exactly do we 'not need to pretend'? What context remains open in which the relevance of the far right to this situation can be discussed?

Is there some reason you can't discuss this without flaming? — frank

What is it about a request for a book summary you find to be flaming?

That is unfortunate but not really what is happening in this thread, I don't think.
I hope Isaac answers my questions. — Amity

Your answer...

The connection to this thread:

Brave citizens fighting for their lives. — Amity


Yes. Brave, brave neo-nazis... — Isaac


Fucking disgusting. — SophistiCat

Ukraine’s National Guard ...which include a thousand-strong neo-Nazi unit. — https://labourheartlands.com/uk-denies-it-agreed-to-train-neo-nazi-linked-ukraine-unit/

It's a fact, but we're not allowed to mention it (on pain of insult) because the Ukrainians are currently victims of an oppressive invasion. There was no end of discussion about the neonazi elements in the Ukrainian military in the press and foreign policy news up to now, but now they're under attack we're required to pretend they're all "brave, brave citizens" rather than discuss the complexity of supporting one side over the other (in disputes over independence) when each have unsavoury elements.

That's what I mean by having to wear our hearts on our sleeves. I didn't answer because I don't see discussion of it as relevant.

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...? — Isaac


It's from a book by a guy named Sakwa. This is his third book on Putin, called the Putin Paradox. — frank

The whole book? I don't suppose you'd be willing to present any of here... Otherwise "what I'm saying is true...it's in a book" isn't awfully helpful. Do you think there aren't books blaming it all on American imperialism?

Oh look! https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf

Can someone enlighten me? Why the demand for condemnation? Are we here to discuss or just to show we're on the right side? — jamalrob


I have a thing about recognizing victims. — frank

The two are quite unrelated. What has identifying an antagonist got to do with recognising victims. We can lament the loss of life in Ukraine even if everything Putin said is absolutely correct. "It's lamentable that so many innocent civilians are put at risk by, this necessary operation for the greater good"...blah blah, blah. It's hard to see how identifying Putin as the sole perpetrator has anything to do with respecting the recognition of victims.

The talk of neonazis ruling Ukraine is simply and absurdly delusional. This has been explained to you again and again and you simply aren't willing to get it. — ssu

We've been through this. Quote me anywhere saying that I think neonazis rule Ukraine. I won't ask again but I will simply flag your posts. This is crossing the line.

Simply put, the idea that Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, would have left it alone, if only NATO and the US had kept to it's own devices and been passive is not credible. Because all the issues I have many times repeated. — ssu

If the best you can do is "You're wrong...because of all the things I've said already" then it's clear this conversation isn't going anywhere"

Do you actually just listen to Putin and take his word as truth? — Christoffer

How have you determined that his motive is to create a Russian empire, other than taking (some of) his words as truth? All you've done differently is decided in advance which of his words you're going to believe - the ones which fit the narrative you've already committed to.

that was in response to previous Russian aggression toward Ukraine. — frank

...which was in response to previous NATO expansion...

...and so on back to the cold war.

Putin is pushing back against Europe and breaking Ukraine's ties to Europe because of his own vision of Russia's future. — frank

That's certainly one theory, yes. Your supporting evidence is...?

You don't read what Putin actually says. He does explain his actions. — ssu

I see. So when Putin talks about...

the expansion of the NATO to the east, moving its military infrastructure closer to Russian borders.

...we should ignore what he says, all propaganda?

When he says...

First, without any approval from the UN Security Council, they carried out a bloody military operation against Belgrade, using aircraft and missiles right in the very centre of Europe. [They carried out] several weeks of continuous bombing of cities and critical infrastructure. We have to remind of these facts, as some Western colleagues do not like to remember those events, and when we talk about it, they prefer to point not to the norms of international law, but to the circumstances that they interpret as they see fit.

...nor even relevant to his motives, just political shenanigans...

When he goes on...

Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya, Syria. The illegitimate use of military force against Libya, the twisting of all decisions taken by the UN Security Council on the Libyan issue led to the complete destruction of the state, to the emergence of a major hotbed of international terrorism, to a humanitarian catastrophe and a civil war that has not ended to this day. The tragedy, to which they doomed hundreds of thousands, millions of people not only in Libya, but throughout this region, gave rise to a massive migration wave from North Africa and the Middle East to Europe.

...nothing to do with the political situation at all, just ignore it.

When he says...

They ensured a similar fate for Syria. The Western coalition’s military activities on the territory of this country without the consent of the Syrian government or the approval of the UN Security Council are nothing but aggression, intervention.

...irrelevant to understanding the situation.

Just like...

However, there is a special place for the invasion of Iraq, which was carried out also without any legal grounds. As a pretext, they put forward supposedly reliable information from the United States about the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As proof of this, publicly, in front of the eyes of the whole world, the US secretary of state shook some kind of a test tube with white powder, assuring everyone that this is a chemical weapon being developed in Iraq. And then it turned out that all this was a hoax, a bluff: there were no chemical weapons in Iraq.”

...has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Likewise....

there were promises to our country not to expand NATO even one inch to the east. I repeat – they deceived us, in other words, they simply conned us. Yes, you can often hear that politics is a dirty business. Perhaps [that is so], but not to this extent. After all, such cheating behaviour contradicts not only the principles of international relations, but above all the generally recognised norms of morality. Where is justice and truth here? Just total lies and hypocrisy.

...and...

in December 2021 we once again made an attempt to agree with the United States and its allies on the principles of ensuring security in Europe and on the non-expansion of NATO. Everything was in vain. The US position did not change. They did not consider it necessary to negotiate with Russia on this important issue for us,

...and...

Further expansion of the NATO infrastructure and the beginning of military development in Ukraine’s territories are unacceptable for us. The problem, of course, is not NATO itself – it is only an instrument of US foreign policy.

...and...

We see that the forces that carried out a coup in Ukraine in 2014, seized power and are holding it through sham electoral procedures, have given up on the peaceful settlement of the conflict. For eight years, for eight long years, we have done everything possible to resolve the situation by peaceful, political means. All was in vain.

...and just as irrelevant...

the leading NATO countries, in order to achieve their own goals, support extreme nationalists and Neo-Nazis in Ukraine, who, in turn, will never forgive the Crimeans and Sevastopol residents for choosing reunification with Russia.

...all of absolutely no use to us in understanding how this was allowed to happen, he could have just cut all that without effect, yes?

...

But it's vitally important that we listen to what Putin's actually saying if we're to understand how this situation came about, yes?

Everything except the bits that don't support your preferred narrative, of course.


If you've already decided which parts of Putin's speech represent his real motives and which parts are just propaganda, then we're not using Putin's speech to inform our understanding at all are we? We already decided what Putin's motives are and we're rifling through his speeches looking for the bits that support that narrative and ignoring the rest.

The simple fact of the matter is that Putin's speech justifying his actions spent more than 90% talking about NATO expansion, American imperialism and interference, and a tiny percentage hinting at a former Russian empire. You've ignored the bulk of the speech completely and you're the one saying that I'm not listening to what he's saying? Seriously?

I'll tell you what's 'scripted'...

Any time there's opposition to government policy or corporate overreach, some nutcase comes along claiming it's all a plot by the lizard people, and subsumes all legitimate dissent and protest, handing the government the very tools they were looking for to silence the whole thing and carry on unopposed.

Your 'friend' is not helping.

You have to acknowledge that. I think this was the confusing part. — ssu

I have to confirm that I'm supporting the narratives you assume I'm supporting? What kind of twisted rhetorical obligation is that? Why don't you simply read what I've written and respond to that? Why insert additional beliefs and then require me to disabuse you of them on pain of being assumed to then hold them?

I don't hold with this modern fetish for wearing one's heart on one's sleeve. If I have to preface every paragraph with "bombing innocent people is bad", or else be thought a monster then we're not going have a very productive conversation.

Likewise if all my comments are going to be skim read just to see which of the two available camps I fall into and then responded to with a series of stock phrases assigned to that group, then there's little point in me being here, the exercise becomes a piece of theatre, not a discussion.

Nobody is treating the US as saviours. — ssu

Nobody is treating the US as a savior. — frank

Yet we have...

I think NATO's response so far has been pathetic. Ukraine is not a member, but surely an ally, and a request from them for 100,000 NATO troops on Poland's border to help could not have been refused. Putin only understands one language - force. — Tim3003

we actually want US with us in Europe to handle this conflict. — Christoffer

But in the main I have been responding to...

time however, it's not fucking imperialism in the way you describe it, it's not US "fault", it's a lunatic called Putin and his delusional Soviet dreams. — Christoffer

... by showing that it is (in part) the US's fault, Europe's fault. Had we left well alone Putin would have been robbed of both strategic gain and narrative excuse, but our meddling to further our own economic interests has, in fact, provided both.

If Putin is indeed the mad man everyone paints him, then why the fuck have the US and Europe spent the last decade poking him with a fucking stick?

And as for the US as saviours... A I said, unless you want to engage in nothing but hearty round of back-slapping as we all congratulate ourselves on having chosen the correct bad guy, then the discussion is about what we do. If we think Putin should be stopped, then by what means?

Which strategies for stopping Putin don't involve America?

you did say the US installed a nazi, which was wrong. — frank

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/659771 Which part do you disagree with?

Either quote me or shut the fuck up.

I have never said, implied, or alluded to the idea that Putin's attack is justified because Ukraine is currently dominated by neo-nazis.

I made the point that the US should not be treated as saviours because they are willing to support no less unscrupulous a party if it serves their economic interests.

This constant association of the point I made about American lack of scruples and Putin's justification for his current invasion is entirely a fabrication by you and @SophistiCat.

If you both can't make your arguments without smearing your interlocutors then it only reflects badly on your arguments.

I don't know, ask Isaac. He is saying that 2014 Revolution of Dignity was a US-backed coup that put Neo-Nazis in power in Ukraine. — SophistiCat

US-backed...

the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, debated strategy for their cause, laying bare a deep degree of U.S. involvement in affairs that Washington officially says are Ukraine’s to resolve. — https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/in-purported-recording-of-us-diplomat-blunt-talk-on-ukraine/2014/02/06/518240a4-8f4b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

we are here to support your just cause — John McCain 2014

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-victoria-nuland-wades-into-ukraine-turmoil-over-yanukovich

180 million dollars on “development programs” for “judges, members of parliament [and] political parties”. — https://www.foreign.senate.gov/hearings/business-meeting-and-implications-of-the-crisis-in-ukraine-hearing

...put Neo-Nazis...



https://theconversation.com/far-right-party-jeopardises-ukraines-path-to-democracy-23999

https://www.jpost.com/Diaspora/Kiev-regional-police-head-accused-of-neo-Nazi-ties-381559

...in power in Ukraine

In the new Ukrainian government politicians linked to the far-right have taken posts from deputy prime minister to head of defence. — https://www.channel4.com/news/svoboda-ministers-ukraine-new-government-far-right

Britain has already admitted arming Ukraine: — Apollodorus

Not the claim.

that was a cover for special operations. — Apollodorus

...was the claim.



Better. But...

Hackers are coming to Ukraine’s aid in an effort to target Russian government websites and officials with disruptive counterattacks, according to six people involved in the activity.

Is quite a long way from...

The Brits (and some Americans) ... have also completely penetrated Russia where they are organizing “peace-demos”, cyber-attacks on government institutions (together with Anonymous), and planning a coup to topple Putin in collaboration with America and then grab Russia's resources. — Apollodorus

So do notice that both Russia and Ukraine were in the Partnership for Peace program with NATO. — ssu

We're into history lessons again. What's your point here? That because Russia also had relations with NATO they had no cause to think Ukraine might join/ally with them? You realise that doesn't follow?

I don't know why you've set yourself such a hard task, but the burden of proof you've laid on yourself is to show that Russia could not rationally have considered Ukraine's joining NATO a credible threat. 'Could not'. Not just 'could have thought otherwise'.

It was President Leonid Kuchma who first started talking about Ukraine joining NATO in 2002. Yet far before that, Russia had already started to operate for the annexation of Crimea — ssu

"Bombing" was the word you used.

And why do you think Russia wanted to annex Crimea, with its warm port access, only year-round naval base and mainly pro-Russian population? Another of mad Putin's crazy acts of wild capriciousness? He's such a lunatic!

Hence as early as 1994, Russia was supporting an agenda of reuniting Crimea with Russia. Since it didn't pan out earlier, and many other things were done to get Crimea, just like giving Russian passports of Crimeans etc, — ssu

"Bombing"

The idea that the annexation of Ukrainian territory was in some way a response to US actions is simply and utterly false. — ssu

See. This is why we can't have nice things. It's not enough for you that people have just reached different conclusions from the extremely complex and propaganda-ridden facts. No. You have to paint the alternative as "utterly false". No doubt you'll be seeking Facebook to ban discussion of it like they did with the" utterly false" lab leak hypothesis the WHO are now investigating as a credible cause.

We've got to stop just throwing "utterly false" at anything we don't like. It completely loses its power against things which really are utterly false.

In order to keep Ukraine out of NATO there would have been a multitude different was to achieve this. — ssu

Again, focus. I'm not defending Russia. I'm not interested in the slightest bit in passing judgement on them, so whether they had alternatives is irrelevant. I'd like to think there's always an alternative to invading another country. The point is to hold our countries to account. The ones we have a say in, can vote in, campaign in, take to the streets in... I don't give a shit about whether Russia was right or wrong to invade Ukraine because I have no political stake in Russia. I care about whether the UK (and by extension its allies) were right or wrong in what they did and in what they're planning to do now.

We've seen this with crisis after crisis recently. The chattering classes looking for the most obviously egregious party to poke fingers at from the safety of their armchairs, all heartily patting each other on the back at how well they've identified the bad guy. Meanwhile the actual work of being a political actor in the areas one can most influence is considered too unsavory, too rife with the pitfalls of social faux pas to dirty one's hands with.

Biden is a ... man

...Biden says he isn’t going to send troops into Ukraine...:

...Boris Johnson sent British troops to Ukraine in January to “train Ukrainians”,... That's an established British procedure.

The Brits (and some Americans) are ... aiming for (a) Russian retreat...

...Russia ... are organizing “peace-demos”, ...

...Biden and Johnson ...talk about “sanctions” ....

...is good. The rest needs evidence.

Fixed it.

Due note please the friendly attitudes that obviously Ukrainians had before Putin started bombing and annexing their country. — ssu

Uh huh.

So when in 1997 Ukraine signed the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25457.htm that was what? A joke? A cunning double bluff?

Or the 2002 NATO-Ukraine Action Plan https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19547.htm . These Ukrainians and their cunning use of Deals with NATO to signify their unwillingness to join NATO. I can't believe Putin fell for that!

Or the 2008 Charter on Strategic Partnership https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2008/dec/113367.htm . Another bit of pro NATO theatre? Not their really real intentions?

Oh, and when exactly did Russia start "bombing and annexing their country"? Was is before or after the government was overthrown by a US backed coup?

It's also clear that the world at large isn't taking the situation in the Ukraine seriously, given that sports, fashion, and other entertainment events go on as usual, tv programs are only slightly changed, but the majority is entertainment as usual. — baker

War is entertainment. There's a reason it sells newspapers (or whatever the modern digital version of that expression ought to be).



Watch the whole thing. Genius.