No, I have provided five references. — Jabberwock

No, you’ve provided one. The others were shown to be complete garbage. Easy for anyone to go back and check.

So I’m glad you see you’re sticking with “one second hand reference” versus the entire documentary record and analyses by the US’s own experts. Predictable.

Too bad Burns, for example, wasn’t around so you could educate him with your cute narrative.

It’s amazing how quickly you devolve into nonsense when confronted on your fictions. Pity.

Yeah, the one reference you’ve provided — a second hand account which doesn’t even quote Putin, and which contradicts your point a second later — must disprove what, for example, Paul Nitze and William Burns knew, what Germany and France knew, and what was explicitly stated over and over again by Putin (in his actual words), of which I gave a sample and which has been well documented and admitted to even by the NATO chief himself.

Makes perfect sense. That one quote also disproves the analyses of Stephen Cohen, Seymour Hersh, Jeffrey Sacks, Mearsheimer, etc. All easily dismissed because an internet guy found a quote he’s interpreted (wrongly) as “if Ukraine wants to join NATO, that’s fine with us.” Perfectly proportional.

I have provided five quotations of Putin that basically say that Ukraine is free to do as it pleases, all in context of NATO expansion or cooperation, including some spoken at the same summit that started Ukraine's accession to NATO and including one that literally states that concerning the NATO expansion, quoted directly from the presidential site. You may pretend all you want that Putin did not say that, the record is quite clear. — Jabberwock

No. You’ve provided one quote — which isn’t even a direct quote — that’s relevant, which is then followed by a contradictory statement. That’s all you’ve given.

To remind:

“On the topic of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, the Russian President said that it was entitled to make the decision independently. He does not see it as something that could cloud the relations between Russia and Ukraine. But President Putin stressed that Russia’s position on the expansion of the bloc remained unchanged.”

If that’s all you have — and apparently it is, given you can’t find another one — then that’s pretty weak indeed. But yeah, that definitely contradicts everything I provided above. :ok:

So either Putin (and his press service) knowingly contradicts himself from sentence to sentence, or maybe Russia's unchanged position on the expansion at that time is not that clear as you believe it is. Take your pick. — Jabberwock

So a long, well documented historical record— or one vague/contradictory, indirect quote. And that’s really all you have, isn’t it?

Guess our own ambassadors needed to completely rethink their views because of that one (reported) statement. Makes sense.

“Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”

Internet guy: “all wrong, because I found one second-hand, contradictory statement.”

Lol. Yeah maybe Putin invaded because _____.

Just do armchair speculation. Good enough. :up:

Hey maybe Putin thought he could conquer an entire country with 190K troops. Sounds reasonable.

here is the fifth one: — Jabberwock

And here is, once again, the context:

Question: Is Russia going to join NATO? What major changes do you foresee in the relations between Ukraine and NATO? And how do you see the pattern of Ukraine-Russia-NATO relations in the future?

Vladimir Putin: Russia does not intend to join NATO. Russia, as you know, is engaged in a very constructive dialogue with NATO to create a new Russia-NATO structure “at twenty”, in which all twenty countries will be represented as nations, each having one vote, and all the issues will be solved without prior consultations, without any prior decisions on a number of issues being taken first within the bloc. You know about these issues and practical consultations have already been completed. These issues are terrorism, humanitarian operations, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other issues.

I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.

It wasn’t a question of Ukraine joining NATO.

The difference between us is that I acknowledge that Putin and others have been saying different things to different people at different times AND provide the relevant evidence. — Jabberwock

Yeah, in the same way Trump has provided evidence of a stolen election.

So far, 3 “quotes” shown to be complete garbage.

So I’ll repeat: the Russian position on US turning Ukraine into a western puppet never changed, including Ukraine joining NATO. Hence why you can’t provide a single quotation that says otherwise.

No, it was not clear at all, as the quotes I have provided show. Also, as I have mentioned, you completely ignore the overall context of the NATO and Russia relations, such as NATO-Russia Council, from which some of the quotes come. — Jabberwock

The quotes show nothing of the sort, as I have now shown three times. Like I said— perhaps just making something up will be the best path for you, given you can’t find any in the real world.

And yes, the NATO-Russia council context works exactly against your thesis. That you somehow think it doesn’t is hilarious.

And again:

Russia has been clear about NATO involvement in Ukraine for decades. It was known in 1995 and explained by Stanley Resor, Paul Nitze, etc., in an open letter to Clinton. It was known very well right up to 2008, when William Burns wrote the following:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

[NATO] would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

It was known in June of 2021, when a massive Seabreeze exercise was conducted:

The largest ever NATO operation in the Black Sea takes place under explosive conditions, beginning just six days after Russian armed forced fired warning shots and then dropped four bombs in the path of HMS Defender, a British warship that entered Russia’s territorial waters off Crimea. The US ignored a request made June 22 from Russia's embassy in Washington—just hours before the UK warship incident—for Sea Breeze to be cancelled this year, with Moscow warning of the danger of military confrontation.

This week’s Sea Breeze manoeuvres, which have taken place annually since 1997, are the largest ever. Co-hosted by the US and Ukrainian navies, Sea Breeze 2021 will involve 32 countries, 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft and 18 special operations. It is being led by the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2), an immediate reaction force which consists of four to six destroyers and frigates. A squadron of US Marines are taking part, with the main naval force involved the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet headquartered in Naples, Italy.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/29/sebr-j29.html

It was known in September 2021, when the White House announced that

We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.

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

It was admitted by the NATO chief himself:

During the disastrous Vietnam War, it was said that the US government treated the public like a mushroom farm: keeping it in the dark and feeding it with manure. The heroic Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers documenting the unrelenting U.S. government lying about the war in order to protect politicians who would be embarrassed by the truth. A half-century later, during the Ukraine War, the manure is piled even higher.

According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.

In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:

“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.

So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

And so on.

Translation:

(1) You cannot, and have not, provided one quote supporting your claim that the Russian stance on Ukraine and NATO has changed.

(2) You completely ignore the historical record.

Refer if you wish to the facts I present for others. Plenty of references.

Blathering on accusing others of ignorance, no matter how many times you repeat it, doesn’t make it so.

Case in point:

——

Russia has been clear about NATO involvement in Ukraine for decades. It was known in 1995 and explained by Stanley Resor, Paul Nitze, etc., in an open letter to Clinton. It was known very well right up to 2008, when William Burns wrote the following:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

[NATO] would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

It was known in June of 2021, when a massive Seabreeze exercise was conducted:

The largest ever NATO operation in the Black Sea takes place under explosive conditions, beginning just six days after Russian armed forced fired warning shots and then dropped four bombs in the path of HMS Defender, a British warship that entered Russia’s territorial waters off Crimea. The US ignored a request made June 22 from Russia's embassy in Washington—just hours before the UK warship incident—for Sea Breeze to be cancelled this year, with Moscow warning of the danger of military confrontation.

This week’s Sea Breeze manoeuvres, which have taken place annually since 1997, are the largest ever. Co-hosted by the US and Ukrainian navies, Sea Breeze 2021 will involve 32 countries, 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft and 18 special operations. It is being led by the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2), an immediate reaction force which consists of four to six destroyers and frigates. A squadron of US Marines are taking part, with the main naval force involved the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet headquartered in Naples, Italy.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/29/sebr-j29.html

It was known in September 2021, when the White House announced that

We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.

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

It was admitted by the NATO chief himself:

During the disastrous Vietnam War, it was said that the US government treated the public like a mushroom farm: keeping it in the dark and feeding it with manure. The heroic Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers documenting the unrelenting U.S. government lying about the war in order to protect politicians who would be embarrassed by the truth. A half-century later, during the Ukraine War, the manure is piled even higher.

According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.

In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:

“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.

So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

And so on.

——

The response?

you are completely out of depth here — Jabberwock

:lol:

How convincing. I hope it convinces you, anyway. Although I doubt it does.

In any case, this is why it’s not worth taking much time to hold your hand through the history and the facts. Given you’ll just pretend it doesn’t exist. Oh well.

Decided to post this separately:

For those following along with any interest in history or nuance: Russia has been clear about NATO involvement in Ukraine for decades. It was known in 1995 and explained by Stanley Resor, Paul Nitze, etc., in an open letter to Clinton. It was known very well right up to 2008, when William Burns wrote the following:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.

[NATO] would be seen … as throwing down the strategic gauntlet. Today’s Russia will respond. Russian-Ukrainian relations will go into a deep freeze...It will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”

It was known in June of 2021, when a massive Seabreeze exercise was conducted:

The largest ever NATO operation in the Black Sea takes place under explosive conditions, beginning just six days after Russian armed forced fired warning shots and then dropped four bombs in the path of HMS Defender, a British warship that entered Russia’s territorial waters off Crimea. The US ignored a request made June 22 from Russia's embassy in Washington—just hours before the UK warship incident—for Sea Breeze to be cancelled this year, with Moscow warning of the danger of military confrontation.

This week’s Sea Breeze manoeuvres, which have taken place annually since 1997, are the largest ever. Co-hosted by the US and Ukrainian navies, Sea Breeze 2021 will involve 32 countries, 5,000 troops, 32 ships, 40 aircraft and 18 special operations. It is being led by the Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 (SNMG2), an immediate reaction force which consists of four to six destroyers and frigates. A squadron of US Marines are taking part, with the main naval force involved the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet headquartered in Naples, Italy.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/06/29/sebr-j29.html

It was known in September 2021, when the White House announced that

We intend to continue our robust training and exercise program in keeping with Ukraine’s status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner.

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

It was admitted by the NATO chief himself:

During the disastrous Vietnam War, it was said that the US government treated the public like a mushroom farm: keeping it in the dark and feeding it with manure. The heroic Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers documenting the unrelenting U.S. government lying about the war in order to protect politicians who would be embarrassed by the truth. A half-century later, during the Ukraine War, the manure is piled even higher.

According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.

In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:

“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.

So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”

https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasion

And so on.

But yeah, how hilarious and silly to think the US has any (major) influence over NATO or the UN or the world economy or wars. After all, it’s not everywhere at once.

No, it plays a major role, but not in every single event. Sometimes it plays an important, but not decisive role. — Jabberwock

Oh, so years of military training, supplying weapons, conducting military drills — not decisive.

I suppose the tens of billions of dollars spent on Ukraine these last two years — also a minor role. After all, Ukraine is an independent nation that makes its own decisions and can defend itself.

Obviously you believe the quotes are 'irrelevant', because you have not read them. — Jabberwock

:roll: Okay pal.

But sure, there are more:

Russia has NO CONCERNS about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security
— KREMLIN!

But it is Kremlin again, so I guess 'poorly documented'. How about this one? — Jabberwock

Nope, just completely taken out of context:

Russia has no concerns about the expansion of NATO from the standpoint of ensuring security, but Russia will organize its military policies accordingly in connection with NATO nearing its borders, President Vladimir Putin announced

You literally can’t even find one quote without the next sentence contradicting your bogus claims.

No, Russia was never fine with the US turning Ukraine into a western puppet. NATO is a big part of that. Easy to understand why, if you do the uncomfortable work of putting yourself into someone else’s shoes. Apparently you’re incapable.

China forming a military alliance in Mexico or Canada wouldn’t go over well in the US. I wonder if the US’s response would be so confusing. Or perhaps the explanation would be that they wanted to conquer Canada for decades and would have attacked anyway.

Second quote, in context:

At a joint press conference in January 2003, Putin responded to a question [what was the question?] about Ukraine. “Ukraine is an independent sovereign state, and it will choose its own path to peace and security,” he said.

Not one word about NATO. Just more vagueness. Apparently you mistook the title of the article for something Putin actually said.

But keep trying. Maybe next time try making it up out of thin air.

There’s going to be a godawful s***fight at the Republican Convention if he is. — Wayfarer

My prediction: there won’t be.

I also have a bet going regarding Biden being the nominee: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/807026



True— he has a shot, no doubt.

Which is simply masterbating with a fellow US sycophant with more myth and propaganda. — boethius

Exactly. But it’s fun to watch people use sarcasm in such a ridiculous way. No one serious denies US power in world affairs, but in order to feel a fake sense of superiority it’s necessary to reduce this fact to absurdity: “That guy slipped on a banana peel— must be the US, ay guys? Har-har-har.”

Meanwhile, our defense industry is loving it to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. But I’m sure that has no “major” influence here either.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to rehash it all again in detail. I really can’t do it anymore. (That’s why I could never be a teacher.)

As an aside, I'm a bit surprised no one has claimed that Washington is the real actual true cause of Putin's rise. :) — jorndoe

How could it be anything else when US imperialism is the singular force that determines events around the world. — Echarmion

Yeah, the US has only a minor role to play in world affairs, politically and economically. How ridiculous to claim it’s responsible for things it’s clearly responsible for.

Ignorance of the underlying conflict, its roots and progress. — Jabberwock

I’ve gone over that at length. You want to jump around in time and then claim the story is full of holes. It’s just a boring game of whack-a-mole.

Maybe it would have been better to have laid it all out at once, from 1991 to 2022. But I can’t do that every time someone replies.

And I do acknowledge the role of the US, but I do not see it as the major factor, because I consider other forces at play, which you have seemed to be blissfully unaware of, like your completely false view that Russian imperialism is a post-2008 Western invention — Jabberwock

Here we go with timelines again. This is what I mean.

Post 2014 invention, actually. I mentioned 2008 because of the Bucharest summit, and whether Russian imperialism was given as a reason for expansion. It wasn’t, of course. True, Crimea gave the US a nice story to tell.

In any case, your accusation doesn’t even make sense. I’m “blissfully unaware” of “other forces at play” — other forces apparently being my view on Russian imperialism? Just a muddled paragraph.

Anyway— I’ve discussed Russian “Internal politics” a great deal. You gave 3 irrelevant quotes when asked to discuss what you meant by it. Yet the claim stands: Russian positions on US involvement in Ukraine, including NATO, was stated explicitly for years, was known by the US, and was done anyway. If you want to claim this was a “minor factor,” so be it. I have no time machine and no window into Putin’s mind, so I obviously cannot falsify your unfalsifiable argument of what might have happened if everything were different.

Putin said that Ukraine is not even a state - that is the Russian perspective that you somehow never mention — Jabberwock

Putin has said a number of things about Ukraine. And yes, I’m very well aware of this line of argument, as it’s been repeated many times on this thread. I’ll just quote Mearsheimer, who said it best over a year ago:

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. 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.

Hence why you provide none.

And what is my unconventional view, exactly?
— Mikie

That the US influence is a major factor in the conflict. — Jabberwock

That’s the extent of your understanding of my position apparently.

So US involvement was a factor, but a minor one. That’s supposedly the big difference here. The major factor was Russian imperialist ambitions — and you point to Georgia and Crimea as evidence— I say these were reactions, and round we go.

But don’t take my word for it. Or the Kremlin’s. Take the following — from 1995 (quite a while before 2004):
— Mikie

No, the position on NATO was not the same, as I have shown in two direct quotes from Putin (unless we assume he was lying all this time, but then we can disregard the 'Russian perspective' altogether). — Jabberwock

Ah yes, the one quote you come back to over and over again, even after it’s shown that Putin says the complete opposite in the very same quote. But you’ll hang on to that forever, apparently, even against a long documentary record and quotations from the US’s own cabinet members/ ambassadors.

No, the position hadn’t changed. It was the same in 1995 as it was in 2002, as it was in 2004, as it was in 2008, etc. Russia was not going to allow Ukraine to be turned into a western bulwark, a “liberal democracy,” or (especially) a member of NATO.

But yeah, one poorly documented (and contradictory) quote from Putin in 2002 definitely negates all that. Give me a break.

You believe it is the US that expanded the NATO, you believe it is the US that trains and arms Ukrainians against their will, you start all your arguments with 'the US'. — Jabberwock

Nope. More strawmen. Yawn.

The tribalism is so glaringly obvious it’s hilarious. Watching them go after Biden (often rightly so, in my view) and then turn around and go through the most pathetic contortions to defend Trump…just classic.

Trump incited an insurrection and should be in prison. In the past, hanged for treason.

Just like to occasionally point out the facts in the midst of all the make believe the cultists have developed like bad improv comedy.

Joe Biden will be the nominee. All this talk of other candidates is nonsense and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

Trump will be the Republican nominee.

All of this is foregone. I imagine Biden sqeaks out another win, despite his age. Polls are way too early to learn anything from.

Yeah the most direct cause leading to the decision to invade Ukraine was…the decision to invade Ukraine.

Always brilliant.

This just seems to be one of those topics that makes it impossible to talk to someone you don't share some basic assumptions with. — Echarmion

:up:

I think so too.

But these are arguments from the 1990s. — Echarmion

Yes, no kidding. There’s a reason for that, given that 2004 was mentioned as supposedly a turning point.

Or we can pretend the US isn’t the world superpower these last 30 years, and that its intentions are mostly benign.
— Mikie

What are it's intentions like? — Echarmion

Fortunately we have not only all of history after the Cold War, but since at least 1945 as well, to answer this question. If one still maintains that the US’s intentions/goals/agenda is benign, I really can’t be of much help.

I am sure it does, given that I have proven your ignorance again and again. — Jabberwock

Ignorance of what, exactly? I think it’s quite clear we’re talking passed each other.

So yes, Ukraine has trained and developed its defences. — Jabberwock

You don’t seem to acknowledge the role of the US, or at best minimize it. Hence why you always talk about what “Ukraine” wanted — as if that’s an easy picture, given the internal divisions.

But suppose we take all that to be true. It does not for a moment negate the fact that Russia would view any support from the US as hostile interference. Even assuming best intentions to spread democracy and helping an ally stand up against oppression and imperialism.

Our own people knew this and said so outright. I won’t go through the quotes again. So again, were they wrong? Or does it not matter because Russia has been bent on conquering Ukraine all along? (According to you.)

Your unconventional views seem to be based on your evident lack of knowledge. — Jabberwock

And what is my unconventional view, exactly?

In order to stay in power and maintain his grip Putin has embraced that rhetoric around 2004 — Jabberwock

The danger of pushing NATO was known long before Putin. That never changed. Russia was weaker at some points, but the position on NATO — particularly Ukraine — remained the same.

But don’t take my word for it. Or the Kremlin’s. Take the following — from 1995 (quite a while before 2004):

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/09/21/should-nato-growa-dissent/

Just one example. Another, from 1997:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the "ins" and the "outs," foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included;

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997-06/arms-control-today/opposition-nato-expansion

NATO expansion was the most direct cause of this war. Doesn’t make Putin a good guy, as simpletons will surely interpret this as saying, but it’s at least worth being honest about.

Or we can pretend the US isn’t the world superpower these last 30 years, and that its intentions are mostly benign. That there was no plan for Eastern Europe beyond spreading democracy, if those countries chose to join. Etc etc

A nice story. Conventional. Easy. (Which is why it’s so common.) But ultimately dead wrong and ignorant of history — and nuance.

Yeah, how convenient it would be to ignore this fact. Might as well sweep it under the rug so as not to sound repetitive.

In fact this has been predicted long before Putin, and not just coming from “monolith” Russia.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/09/21/should-nato-growa-dissent/

NATO, a strictly defensive alliance, with steadily decreasing army in Europe, — Jabberwock

:lol:

And then…

it is about your complete ignorance of European politics, — Jabberwock

Yeah, and coming from a guy who makes statements like the one above— that cuts deep.

Your claim is that without the US influence there would be no war, — Jabberwock

Nope. I like to stick to reality.

Maybe there would have been a way anyway— yeah, sure. Maybe there would be a war in Israel without the US providing billions in military aid. Let’s jump in a Time Machine and see how things might turn out if things were different. Let’s kill Hitler while we’re at it and see if Germany would have started a war anyway. Who knows?

Ukraine has consistently demanded more independence from Russia and Russia's politics has clearly steered toward nationalism and imperialism. That made the war likely, as Russia has no qualms in engaging militarily in its neighbourhood. — Jabberwock

Demanded more independence— like EU and NATO membership. Which clearly has nothing to do with the United States influence. Got it. Never mind what Russia was saying about this for years.

And as I have shown, Ukrainians had every reason to fear Russia, given that significant political forces in Russia demanded not only Ukraine's subjugation, but even questioned its statehood, and Putin has openly embraced that rhetoric. That is the 'Russian perspective' you keep overlooking. — Jabberwock

No, that’s the Ukrainian perspective. You don’t even seem to know what the Russian perspective was. Which is striking— and exactly the point.

Right or wrong, there was no way Russia was going to allow Ukraine to be turned into a “Western bulwark,” and it was clear about this for years. Especially regarding NATO. If Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 weren’t evidence enough, fine. But then further funding, training, and supplying (all with US backing) — all while Russia warned against it — eventually leading to war, just as our own diplomats and chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, et al., predicted, shouldn’t have been a major surprise.

To write it off as “well it would have happened anyway because Russia turned nationalistic and imperialistic” is less than great analysis. It’s the conventional view, no doubt— but I repeat myself.

By what you are saying now, Russia should not be threatened by NATO at all, because there is no evidence suggesting NATO was planning on conquering Russia or annexing part of it! — Jabberwock

Is this a joke?

So Russia has invaded Ukraine in 2014 for the main cause which was not NATO expansion. The conflict was ongoing since then, with different intensity. Your argument is now that Russia would likely not escalate it further if Ukraine did not arm itself in response to Russia's aggression. — Jabberwock

The US had a plan for Eastern Europe. That plan is not exclusively NATO. Your inability to understand that isn’t my problem.

The US decided to support them, for its own selfish interests, of course, I have never denied that. But the actual question is: without the US influence, would there be no conflict at all or simply there would be a conflict in which Ukraine would have less chance to succeed? — Jabberwock

That’s not the question. It’s not about hypotheticals. It’s about the facts, of what actually happened. And US influence is all over it, from the billion + spent on social influence to NATO expansion to supporting the overthrow of the government to economic influences to supplying military training and arms.

The question is whether we — the US —should have taken the Russian perspective seriously. I think we should have. We didn’t. And that’s why we have the war.

What the Ukrainian people have wanted has varied greatly. We see from polls about NATO or EU membership that things change, and especially in different regions. So to treat Ukraine as a monolith is incorrect. But it’s also irrelevant to the point about US influence, which is all over this war and all over Ukraine for decades.

:up:

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. — Captain Homicide

It is the guns. Which is why the US is unique in its mass shootings, for example. "Crime and murder" are at their lowest -- so robberies and car thefts are lower, and that's supposed to prove something? Also, homicides are down since 1981, yes. The share of those homicides where guns were used? 80% or more.

We have more guns than people and very lax regulations. Hence the gun violence, including mass shootings occurring nearly every day.

Also, the number of guns in this country has DRAMATICALLY increased, outnumbering population around 2007. So the statement "Firearms have always been readily accessible" is misleading.

https://www.thetrace.org/2023/03/guns-america-data-atf-total/

Your argument is that nothing is wrong, or if it is, it's not guns. Then what is is? We gotta bust out the NRA-approved "mental health" talking point?

Trump seems to care about words too:

I'm very highly educated. I know words, I know the best words.

But remember: when it's against my ideology or team, it's only words. When it's the "other" guys, Clinton, Hunter Biden, etc. -- more than words.

I own a gun too. But the reality is that we don't live in the Wild West. Attacks we're concerned about generally happen without warning. If someone is gonna kill you, they don't challenge you to a duel. In fact the "good guy with a gun" myth shows that having a gun often has the opposite effect.

Ah yes, the old “equalizer” mythology. How quaint.

Must be fun living in the Wild West. What imagination.

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

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

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

:up: :up:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You better regulate guns, you drastically reduce overall homicides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who cares?

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

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

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

The problem is guns and gun regulations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest is smoke and mirrors.

Yes it is. — Count Timothy von Icarus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m sure it’s possible. So what?

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

It isn’t.

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

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

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

We have more guns than people.

States with more guns have more gun deaths:

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

Worth checking this out too:

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

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

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

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

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

Strawman.

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

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

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

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

You speak of strawmen but this is one. — schopenhauer1

No, it’s not. At least not Maher’s.

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

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

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

Does Bill Maher have a point? — schopenhauer1

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

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

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

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

Give me a break.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the more guns, the more deaths from guns.

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

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

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

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

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