Let’s have a war!

[ousdahl]

And oh man, let’s dissect this whopper.

Do you believe that if left unchecked that Putin would stop at Ukraine? Yes or No.

Now, I don’t want take a page out of fish’s book and squirm my way out of answering a question under the guise I just don’t understand. So, for the sake of trying to better understand before I answer, let me first ask:

You mean like, domino theory?

Or do you believe that he would continue on and end up invading a NATO country which would result in a full-blown war with US soldiers on the ground? Yes or No.

See above.

And…If it’s yes, I think there’s a certain cart-before-the-horse happening here. Let’s cross that bridge when we get there? And either way, I think every step should be taken to deescalate before crossing that bridge, rather than escalate and perpetuate under the assumption that bridge crossing is inevitable.

If it’s no, I guess it’s yet another example of the U.S./western war rhetoric turning out to be a little less than legit?

(Oh, and trick question…it’s ALREADY a full-blown war with U.S. soldiers on the ground!)

Sometimes there is a need for some sort of military presence and participation to try to avoid a full blown military escalation into war.

I think there may be more cart before the horse. Or perhaps, chicken and egg. Maybe there wouldn’t have been a full blown military escalation into war if not for all the military presence and participation (not to mention the “go fuck yourself” responses to attempted diplomatic resolutions) in the first place?

[jfish26]

https://a.co/d/g3cMvQe

[twocoach]

And oh man, let’s dissect this whopper.

Do you believe that if left unchecked that Putin would stop at Ukraine? Yes or No.

Now, I don’t want take a page out of fish’s book and squirm my way out of answering a question under the guise I just don’t understand. So, for the sake of trying to better understand before I answer, let me first ask:

You mean like, domino theory?

Or do you believe that he would continue on and end up invading a NATO country which would result in a full-blown war with US soldiers on the ground? Yes or No.

See above.

And…If it’s yes, I think there’s a certain cart-before-the-horse happening here. Let’s cross that bridge when we get there? And either way, I think every step should be taken to deescalate before crossing that bridge, rather than escalate and perpetuate under the assumption that bridge crossing is inevitable.

If it’s no, I guess it’s yet another example of the U.S./western war rhetoric turning out to be a little less than legit?

(Oh, and trick question…it’s ALREADY a full-blown war with U.S. soldiers on the ground!)

Sometimes there is a need for some sort of military presence and participation to try to avoid a full blown military escalation into war.

I think there may be more cart before the horse. Or perhaps, chicken and egg. Maybe there wouldn’t have been a full blown military escalation into war if not for all the military presence and participation (not to mention the “go fuck yourself” responses to attempted diplomatic resolutions) in the first place?

Is talking in circles a generational thing or is it just a hyperactive thing specific to you? Two simple yes or no questions and I got that mess.

[ousdahl]

I am engaging on Putin’s war on Ukraine. Not on … checks notes … Vietnam or Second Manassas or any of the six Battles of Carthage.

It should be a massive red flag, to any discerning observer, that Putin’s justifications for his war range from gross exaggerations to lazy, outright lies.

If someone is trying to sell you something, and they are lying about it, then that person is TELLING you out loud that whatever the actual merits of the thing are, the actual merits of the thing are NOT enough for a discerning person to buy what is being sold.

In other words, if what Cory actually did was SO bad that it at least adequately explained why Shawn would do what Shawn did, then Shawn would not exaggerate and lie about what Cory actually did!

Of course Putin’s “justifications” are a massive red flag.

But, in the interest of avoiding asymmetry - how is it not also a red flag for the U.S. to insist upon this vague carte blanche support and “not matter how long it takes” rhetoric for Ukraine, particularly on the coattails of 20 fucking years in Afghanistan?

But you keep starting from these false starting places.

I think you misunderstood how I used “asymmetry” earlier - in fact here you are trying to find symmetry.

There is no such thing even sought that could be characterized as “vague carte blanche support.”

And “20 fucking years in Afghanistan” is not a relevant comparison* here, where we are talking about support that is intended, fundamentally, to prevent putting US servicemembers in harm’s way.

* That this is often brought up is instructive, though, in the context of the exploitation by Putin of those with sincerely-held anti-war positions.

So if our support is something more than vague and carte blanche, can you explain the specific strategy to this latest aid package, and how we can expect some outcome more favorable than the one the previous aid packages have yielded thus far?

Fall 2021 was a low point in U.S. military credibility, with the “end” of our occupation of Afghanistan - for, yes, 20 years! Or do you disagree?

As such, I think it’s very much appropriate to question U.S. militarism going forward, particularly if the rhetoric involved is practically glorifying the idea of investing in yet another war with no end in sight.

[ousdahl]

Ok, time, twocoach. Despite your deflection of a response, I’ll bite:

YES, I think Putin would stop at Ukraine.

NO, I don’t think he would end up invading a NATO country too.

I say this not cuz I think Putin deserves any benefit of the doubt, but because that sort of “Putin won’t stop there” rhetoric is precisely the same bullshit our own government has deceived us with, over and over.

It’s like that famous anti-war dove peacenik George W. Bush said…

[MICHHAWK]

something about......if the U.S. does not fund all the wars, russia will take over europe. or something like that.

[twocoach]

Ok, time, twocoach. Despite your deflection of a response, I’ll bite:

YES, I think Putin would stop at Ukraine.

NO, I don’t think he would end up invading a NATO country too.

I say this not cuz I think Putin deserves any benefit of the doubt, but because that sort of “Putin won’t stop there” rhetoric is precisely the same bullshit our own government has deceived us with, over and over.

It’s like that famous anti-war dove peacenik George W. Bush said…

Do you have a legitimate reason to believe that Putin wouldn't stop there or are you just going with the "hey, that sounds like a slippery slope argument and I'm too smart to fall for those because I saw this meme once!"

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... ins-mercy/

[jfish26]

So if our support is something more than vague and carte blanche, can you explain the specific strategy to this latest aid package, and how we can expect some outcome more favorable than the one the previous aid packages have yielded thus far?

“ With rescue efforts ongoing, Russia's missile attack on a Chernihiv hotel and hospital has taken 60 victims, among them several children.

With "allies" no longer helping with air defenses, the massacres will only increase.”

https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/17805495 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

[jfish26]

Fall 2021 was a low point in U.S. military credibility, with the “end” of our occupation of Afghanistan - for, yes, 20 years! Or do you disagree?

As such, I think it’s very much appropriate to question U.S. militarism going forward, particularly if the rhetoric involved is practically glorifying the idea of investing in yet another war with no end in sight.

My opinion is that you are, again, conflating non-comparable actions/situations.

[jfish26]

Russia Is Buying Politicians in Europe. Is It Happening Here Too?

A former CIA officer explains how a vast, pro-Putin corruption network uncovered in Europe is a warning sign for the U.S.

https://newrepublic.com/article/180630/ ... ns-america

“I think Russian propaganda has made its way into the United States, unfortunately, and it’s infected a good chunk of my party’s base,” [GOP] Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Puck’s Julia Ioffe last week. Representative Mike Turner, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, went further, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper a few days later, “We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor.”

Which Republicans might they be referring to? Representative Ken Buck didn’t hesitate to point a finger at Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, saying on Monday, “Moscow Marjorie is focused now on this Ukraine issue and getting her talking points from the Kremlin and making sure that she is popular and she is getting a lot of coverage.”

They’re saying aloud what they once whispered behind closed doors. Back in 2016, when he was a Republican congressman but not yet House speaker, Kevin McCarthy said in a private meeting with GOP leaders, “There’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … swear to God.” (Rohrabacher, once dubbed “Putin’s favorite congressman,” lost his seat in 2018.)

McCarthy, confronted with the leaked audio in 2017, claimed it was a joke. But anyone paying attention to how Russian intelligence services run influence operations—which I do, as a former CIA officer—knows it is anything but. It raises a legitimate, and deadly serious, question: Have Russian operatives paid any Republican officials?

Consider the news last week that authorities in several European countries had uncovered a vast corruption network, in which European politicians were paid to spread anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia propaganda. The network, according to intelligence sources cited by Czech media and confirmed by the country’s prime minister, was orchestrated by pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk. Politicians from Germany, France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary were allegedly paid directly with cash or through cryptocurrency exchanges.

The case highlights an important misunderstanding that arose during Trump’s first presidential campaign, about how malign influence operations work: They are not simply, or even primarily, bot or troll networks on social media that amplify lies and propaganda. They’re human intelligence operations too—not unlike what you might see in a Hollywood film. Operatives of Russia’s security services meet with politicians, journalists, activists, and other influencers and pay them to carry out certain tasks.

The idea is to push narratives and policies that help Russia but to mask them behind a local face. (In the aforementioned case, the popular website Voice of Europe was allegedly used to push the propaganda and to facilitate payments.) This provides Russia plausible deniability, but it also makes it more likely that audiences will trust the messages. It serves a purpose within Russia too, as domestic propaganda purportedly showing that people in other countries agree with the Kremlin’s positions.

[...]

It is naïve to think the same pattern does not exist in the United States, given the ample evidence of coordinated pro-Russian talking points from several Republican politicians. Just this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke to Steve Bannon about Ukraine’s persecution of Christians, which is a Kremlin talking point aimed at boosting the pro-Moscow wing of Ukraine’s Orthodox Church. The U.S. should be spending money on the border with Mexico, not on Ukraine aid? That’s a Kremlin talking point. Russia invaded Ukraine to defend itself against an expanding NATO? That’s a Kremlin talking point. Call for a cease-fire, and give Russia Crimea and eastern Ukraine? That’s a Kremlin talking point.

We continue, after a breath.

As for payments, we’ve seen a disturbing pattern. In 2017, Andrew Intrater donated $250,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund and, a few months later, donated $35,000 to Trump’s reelection campaign. Intrater is a cousin of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 for his connections to Putin. We know that oligarchs play an integral role in funding Russian influence operations. One oligarch revealed to special counsel Robert Mueller that Putin held quarterly meetings with his oligarchs to discuss strategic spending.

In 2018, a Texas-based firm donated money to House Speaker Mike Johnson. That firm is 88 percent owned by three Russians. And last week, we learned that Trump Media received loans from a Russian bank to help the company stay afloat before it went public and at a time when no U.S. bank would lend to Trump.

Any donations that might have been made through anonymous LLCs to PACs—perhaps with attached quid pro quos—are likely to remain opaque, due to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. And we cannot say if the financial transactions we do know about are nefarious. But the pattern paints a disturbing picture, particularly given many House Republicans’ rabid opposition to Ukraine aid and Trump’s reported Ukraine peace plan, which would cede Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia. A similar plan was floated by Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, and his partner Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence operative, during the 2016 election.

[...]

We now have overwhelming evidence of vast pro-Russian influence operations throughout Europe that seek to exploit politicians, media personalities, and others—and some of these efforts have been successful. Here in the United States, while a pattern has emerged, we don’t know the full extent of the influence yet. But it would be foolish, not to mention dangerous, to think we are immune.

[ousdahl]

Ok, time, twocoach. Despite your deflection of a response, I’ll bite:

YES, I think Putin would stop at Ukraine.

NO, I don’t think he would end up invading a NATO country too.

I say this not cuz I think Putin deserves any benefit of the doubt, but because that sort of “Putin won’t stop there” rhetoric is precisely the same bullshit our own government has deceived us with, over and over.

It’s like that famous anti-war dove peacenik George W. Bush said…

Do you have a legitimate reason to believe that Putin wouldn't stop there or are you just going with the "hey, that sounds like a slippery slope argument and I'm too smart to fall for those because I saw this meme once!"

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/u ... ins-mercy/

AGAIN, the “Putin won’t stop there” is the same sort of bullshit rhetoric that turned out to be…well, bullshit.

Again, remember domino theory?

Heck, remember WMDs in Iraq?

What credibility does the U.S. war machine have here?

And holy shit, that article. “If Putin wins in Ukraine, will he go further?” just asking questions. I’ll take neo-Cold War propaganda for 800, Alex.

[ousdahl]

Russia Is Buying Politicians in Europe. Is It Happening Here Too?

A former CIA officer explains how a vast, pro-Putin corruption network uncovered in Europe is a warning sign for the U.S.

https://newrepublic.com/article/180630/ ... ns-america

“I think Russian propaganda has made its way into the United States, unfortunately, and it’s infected a good chunk of my party’s base,” [GOP] Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Puck’s Julia Ioffe last week. Representative Mike Turner, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, went further, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper a few days later, “We see directly coming from Russia attempts to mask communications that are anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia messages, some of which we even hear being uttered on the House floor.”

Which Republicans might they be referring to? Representative Ken Buck didn’t hesitate to point a finger at Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, saying on Monday, “Moscow Marjorie is focused now on this Ukraine issue and getting her talking points from the Kremlin and making sure that she is popular and she is getting a lot of coverage.”

They’re saying aloud what they once whispered behind closed doors. Back in 2016, when he was a Republican congressman but not yet House speaker, Kevin McCarthy said in a private meeting with GOP leaders, “There’s two people, I think, Putin pays: [Representative Dana] Rohrabacher and Trump … swear to God.” (Rohrabacher, once dubbed “Putin’s favorite congressman,” lost his seat in 2018.)

McCarthy, confronted with the leaked audio in 2017, claimed it was a joke. But anyone paying attention to how Russian intelligence services run influence operations—which I do, as a former CIA officer—knows it is anything but. It raises a legitimate, and deadly serious, question: Have Russian operatives paid any Republican officials?

Consider the news last week that authorities in several European countries had uncovered a vast corruption network, in which European politicians were paid to spread anti-Ukraine and pro-Russia propaganda. The network, according to intelligence sources cited by Czech media and confirmed by the country’s prime minister, was orchestrated by pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Medvedchuk. Politicians from Germany, France, Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Hungary were allegedly paid directly with cash or through cryptocurrency exchanges.

The case highlights an important misunderstanding that arose during Trump’s first presidential campaign, about how malign influence operations work: They are not simply, or even primarily, bot or troll networks on social media that amplify lies and propaganda. They’re human intelligence operations too—not unlike what you might see in a Hollywood film. Operatives of Russia’s security services meet with politicians, journalists, activists, and other influencers and pay them to carry out certain tasks.

The idea is to push narratives and policies that help Russia but to mask them behind a local face. (In the aforementioned case, the popular website Voice of Europe was allegedly used to push the propaganda and to facilitate payments.) This provides Russia plausible deniability, but it also makes it more likely that audiences will trust the messages. It serves a purpose within Russia too, as domestic propaganda purportedly showing that people in other countries agree with the Kremlin’s positions.

[...]

It is naïve to think the same pattern does not exist in the United States, given the ample evidence of coordinated pro-Russian talking points from several Republican politicians. Just this week, Marjorie Taylor Greene spoke to Steve Bannon about Ukraine’s persecution of Christians, which is a Kremlin talking point aimed at boosting the pro-Moscow wing of Ukraine’s Orthodox Church. The U.S. should be spending money on the border with Mexico, not on Ukraine aid? That’s a Kremlin talking point. Russia invaded Ukraine to defend itself against an expanding NATO? That’s a Kremlin talking point. Call for a cease-fire, and give Russia Crimea and eastern Ukraine? That’s a Kremlin talking point.

We continue, after a breath.

As for payments, we’ve seen a disturbing pattern. In 2017, Andrew Intrater donated $250,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund and, a few months later, donated $35,000 to Trump’s reelection campaign. Intrater is a cousin of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch who was sanctioned by the U.S. in 2018 for his connections to Putin. We know that oligarchs play an integral role in funding Russian influence operations. One oligarch revealed to special counsel Robert Mueller that Putin held quarterly meetings with his oligarchs to discuss strategic spending.

In 2018, a Texas-based firm donated money to House Speaker Mike Johnson. That firm is 88 percent owned by three Russians. And last week, we learned that Trump Media received loans from a Russian bank to help the company stay afloat before it went public and at a time when no U.S. bank would lend to Trump.

Any donations that might have been made through anonymous LLCs to PACs—perhaps with attached quid pro quos—are likely to remain opaque, due to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. And we cannot say if the financial transactions we do know about are nefarious. But the pattern paints a disturbing picture, particularly given many House Republicans’ rabid opposition to Ukraine aid and Trump’s reported Ukraine peace plan, which would cede Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine to Russia. A similar plan was floated by Paul Manafort, Trump’s 2016 campaign chairman, and his partner Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian intelligence operative, during the 2016 election.

[...]

We now have overwhelming evidence of vast pro-Russian influence operations throughout Europe that seek to exploit politicians, media personalities, and others—and some of these efforts have been successful. Here in the United States, while a pattern has emerged, we don’t know the full extent of the influence yet. But it would be foolish, not to mention dangerous, to think we are immune.

On “give Putin Crimea and Eastern Ukraine,” did we ever figure out what to make of that whole “separatist republic” thing?

[ousdahl]

Fall 2021 was a low point in U.S. military credibility, with the “end” of our occupation of Afghanistan - for, yes, 20 years! Or do you disagree?

As such, I think it’s very much appropriate to question U.S. militarism going forward, particularly if the rhetoric involved is practically glorifying the idea of investing in yet another war with no end in sight.

My opinion is that you are, again, conflating non-comparable actions/situations.

the point is on credibility.

Did the U.S. military gain or loose it from Afghanistan?

And what's the rationale for thinking the reasons given for escalating and perpetuating Ukraine will end up being more legitimate this time?

[ousdahl]

So if our support is something more than vague and carte blanche, can you explain the specific strategy to this latest aid package, and how we can expect some outcome more favorable than the one the previous aid packages have yielded thus far?

“ With rescue efforts ongoing, Russia's missile attack on a Chernihiv hotel and hospital has taken 60 victims, among them several children.

With "allies" no longer helping with air defenses, the massacres will only increase.”

https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/17805495 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

oh, so NOW you care about civilian casualties.

[ousdahl]

i love me some cherries

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-a ... y-not-war/

interesting article, thanks for the share.

go figure maybe we've been better at diplomacy than at war. if only...

also wondering whether this bit is actually just more Putin propaganda:

It’s also true that the U.S. has continued to stay involved in world affairs militarily. The wars it has been involved in have been pursued for strategic reasons and proved generally unsuccessful

[jfish26]

Fall 2021 was a low point in U.S. military credibility, with the “end” of our occupation of Afghanistan - for, yes, 20 years! Or do you disagree?

As such, I think it’s very much appropriate to question U.S. militarism going forward, particularly if the rhetoric involved is practically glorifying the idea of investing in yet another war with no end in sight.

My opinion is that you are, again, conflating non-comparable actions/situations.

the point is on credibility.

Did the U.S. military gain or loose it from Afghanistan?

And what's the rationale for thinking the reasons given for escalating and perpetuating Ukraine will end up being more legitimate this time?

What does the US’ credibility have to do with Putin’s bullshit pretext for his war on Ukraine? Do you really think that if he had evidence that it was true/supportable, he would just…you know…not show it?

[jfish26]

So if our support is something more than vague and carte blanche, can you explain the specific strategy to this latest aid package, and how we can expect some outcome more favorable than the one the previous aid packages have yielded thus far?

“ With rescue efforts ongoing, Russia's missile attack on a Chernihiv hotel and hospital has taken 60 victims, among them several children.

With "allies" no longer helping with air defenses, the massacres will only increase.”

https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/17805495 ... q_-8Yt1KMA

oh, so NOW you care about civilian casualties.

You are completely making up that I said I do not care about civilian casualties, and that is extremely disappointing considering that I have been quite patient and fair with your stuff here.

What I said was that I do not understand the Middle East stuff as well as I do the Russia/Ukraine stuff, and I am very reluctant to express strong opinions on things I do not understand.

You might try that out.

[ousdahl]

Thanks for your patience. I really do appreciate it. I too have made the effort to afford patience to you too.

I didn't mean to say you do not care about civilian casualties. If there was something to that "so NOW you care" comment, it's that when I tried to previously seek your opinion on civilian (and U.S. civilian at that!) casualties, you avoided giving one, until you finally offered some about how you do not understand Middle East stuff as well.

Trying to speak as objectively as possible, I just don't know what more there may be to understand about bombing aid workers, and bombing foreign embassies in other foreign countries yet.

You almost insinuate that maybe there's some grander context here that's worth understanding. And, maybe there is! But, at face value, I don't think it's going out on a limb to suggest bombing aid workers and embassies is like completely fucked up.

Just like bombing hospitals! And hotels! And children! Particularly children! Regardless of who's doing it!

I try to take these sorts of events at face value, and as objectively as possible. I don't think it's worth considering whether the perp is some geopolitcal ally or foe, or whether it's our own damn country, to form a strong opinion about what seems like obvious crimes against humanity.

...unless the confusion comes from some "crimes against humanity" vs. "war crimes" sort of which definition to apply. Regardless, it's fucked up.

Now, since you admittedly better understand the Ukraine/Russia stuff, can I kindly try again for your take on the whole "separatist republic" thing?

[ousdahl]

What does the US’ credibility have to do with Putin’s bullshit pretext for his war on Ukraine? Do you really think that if he had evidence that it was true/supportable, he would just…you know…not show it?

Whether Putin shows such evidence, I dunno, cuz I honestly don't pay that much attention to the dood.

And, I agree that his pretext for his work on Ukraine is bullshit!

But, here's the thing about Putin, and Russia as a whole:

Your and my understanding of Putin and Russia is OVERWHELMINGLY, maybe entirely, formed by propaganda. Like, ever hear of the Cold War? The U.S. and NATO and the west at large have been conditioning us for our entire lives to think Putin and Russia is full of shit.

And, again, I'm not saying they aren't!

I'm just saying it's prob worth at least being aware of as much - especially when the powers doing that conditioning have proven themselves in so many ways to be just as full of shit.

if anything, I wish the U.S. would give us more here. That's to say, give us more reason to to believe, say, this next aid package really is gonna be some game changer. Give us a better vision for this shit than, "no matter how long it takes!"

I mean, hell, we at least got WMDs for Iraq, right? (never mind that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq)

and, didn't we invade Afghanistan to find bin Laden? (never mind that bin Laden wasn't found in Afghanistan)

I really am trying to get on bored here. Rhetorically speaking, give us a cause for perpetuation, but don't make perpetuation the cause!

[Overlander]

This thread has become a fucking wasteland.