KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 3:09 pm
KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:30 am
“I'm not super familiar with the global weapons trade”
it would behoove you to do some research prior to these discussions
“But the US is perhaps the biggest player in NATO, and if the US acted like the actual leaders of the free world who actually wanted to broker peace…”
by doing what, exactly? are you forgetting the months of attempted diplomacy prior to any actual fighting?
“How would you feel about some other country, perhaps even some other NATO country, going behind our backs about Ukraine?”
not sure what you’re getting at. going behind our backs how? if another NATO country went behind the US’ back, they’d necessarily be going behind the backs of all other NATO members as well, and i’d imagine such an action wouldn’t sit well. there’s a reason the alliance exists - the greater good for all members
give me a more specific hypothetical that gets at what you’re asking
“t hought experiment: if indeed "none of NATO countries are comfortable with putin's actions," then what about non-NATO countries? You realize most of the world is NOT NATO, right? Or do you mean to say the US/NATO world view is the only world view that matters?”
what’s your point? of course the views of non-NATO countries matter, generally. but, some countries have a vested and direct interest in what’s going. it should be pretty obvious that the sentiments of Ivory Coast or French Guyana are secondary to those of European countries in this instance.
the US and NATO are pro-democracy. i’m pro-democracy. i don’t give two shots about the opinions of countries that aren’t pro-democracy. do you think the opinions of autocratic or totalitarian governments should matter as much or more than those that are pro-democracy?
of course there’s no direct evidence that putin has visions beyond Ukraine, but people much smarter and informed on this subject are near certain that, at least impart, Ukraine has been as much an exercise to see what putin can get away with as it is anything directly related to Ukraine.
again, why are you so insistent on believing putin’s narrative, even in the face of his ever-changing justifications for the provocation?
you still aren’t answering my questions, but deflecting…sorry, but it comes off as you really just not having any clue what you’re talking about
maybe I didn't quote every single point, but I think there's a lot of good sincere responses to your questions here, which I'm posting again, since you asked again and may have missed it the first time around.
ousdahl wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 1:13 pm
KUTradition wrote: ↑Thu Apr 14, 2022 11:30 am
by doing what, exactly? are you forgetting the months of attempted diplomacy prior to any actual fighting?
this would be good to review. What diplomacy, exactly? I'd like to see a timeline of attempts at diplomacy, juxtaposed with a timeline of "lethal aid." To review only one without the other would seem disingenuous.
“How would you feel about some other country, perhaps even some other NATO country, going behind our backs about Ukraine?”
not sure what you’re getting at.
guess I'm not sure either then...I just asked cuz you're the one who alleged Ukraine would "just get weapons from other western countries" and I was trying to better understand that much.
“t hought experiment: if indeed "none of NATO countries are comfortable with putin's actions," then what about non-NATO countries? You realize most of the world is NOT NATO, right? Or do you mean to say the US/NATO world view is the only world view that matters?”
what’s your point? of course the views of non-NATO countries matter, generally. but, some countries have a vested and direct interest in what’s going. it should be pretty obvious that the sentiments of Ivory Coast or French Guyana are secondary to those of European countries in this instance.
my point is that much of the rest of the world views the US and NATO not as the liberators we tell ourselves we are, but as thee biggest warmongers in the world, and a bunch of hypocrites to boot. Much of the rest of the world is viewing this not as some good guy bad guy pick a side narrative like we do, but as two imperial bullies trying to outmeasure each other's cocks. Turns out, clusterfucks like the Iraq invasion, the Afghanistan invasion, et al, were quite the dings to our global reputation, and in light of that, much of the rest of the world thinks we don't have the credibility to now claim some moral high road about other foreign invasions and such.
(AGAIN, not that that justifies any Russian aggression!)
the US and NATO are pro-democracy. i’m pro-democracy.[/quote]
I am pro-democracy too! But my concern is, the Ukraine sounds effectively far closer to some far-right fascist authoritarian regime, than they are to any sort of healthy democracy. I don't know how you can be so indifferent to that. And let me again clarify - even if Ukraine is run by a bunch of fascists, that in no way justifies the Russian invasion! But! In no way does it justify your and my tax dollars paying for Ukrainian extremists' weapons, either!
and realize, much of the rest of the world does not view the US and NATO as necessarily being "pro-democracy" in the feel-good way we think of it. See the previous points about Afghanistan et al.
NOT THAT THAT WOULD JUSTIFY RUSSIAN INVASION
of course there’s no direct evidence that putin has visions beyond Ukraine but people much smarter and informed on this subject are near certain that, at least impart, Ukraine has been as much an exercise to see what putin can get away with as it is anything directly related to Ukraine.
if there is a lack of "direct evidence" that that much might actually occur, doesn't it seem like that may just be more sensationalist pro-war rhetoric, then? But yeah, if it was up to Putin, I'm sure his stupid ego would be thrilled to have some big giant imperial footprint to call his own. As delusional as he is, though, short of actual evidence of as much, then suggesting that much might be giving him too much credit.
again, why are you so insistent on believing putin’s narrative, even in the face of his ever-changing justifications for the provocation?
it's so frustrating that, no matter how many times I condemn this shit, you guys still try to pin me as "believing Putin's narrative" regardless. BEING ANTI-WAR DOES NOT EQUATE TO BEING PRO-THE OTHER SIDE. Try conditioning your minds to be better than that!
I don't believe Putin's narrative one bit! I've said that over and over and over again. And again, please make the attempt to distinguish. Just cuz I'd rather not be arming a bunch of nazis doesn't automatically equate to being a Russia supporter. I condemn their aggression! It's just I condemn the Ukrainian ethno-fascist aggression too! Do you?
cuz bear in mind, there's plenty of evidence, from our own government and western media, that Ukraine was and is a mess all along. It's not believing Putin's narrative to acknowledge that. To REFUSE to acknowledge that like totally IS some fucked up western propagandized bullshit, though!
you still aren’t answering my questions, but deflecting…sorry, but it comes off as you really just not having any clue what you’re talking about
I've tried to answer your questions directly. Forgive me if it's still not satisfactory to you. I'll admit tho, I'm no expert about eastern European foreign policy! Forgive me if I'm still not being direct enough...or if I'm not just telling you what you wanna hear.
Let me try to articulate, once again, that both of these things can be true:
- the Russian invasion should be condemned
- Ukraine has a nazi problem either way
I suppose the reason I can't shut up about it, is your guys's shameless gaslighting otherwise, combined with your guys's perceived reluctance to admit nazism is a problem too.
another thought experiment!: say Russia is licked, and Putin comes out with his tail between his legs, and concedes defeat, and hastily withdraws from Ukraine. (if only!) So, what then? We have a nation rife with right-wing extremism, but now as emboldened as ever by their victory over Russia, and also better armed than they've ever been, to get back to their genocidal civil war humanitarian crisis no one cared about previously...what then? Do we just go back to like not caring about it again?
let's go way down Q's rabbit hole: what if all that happens, and Ukraine then starts being the imperial cockmeasurers? What if they start invading their neighbors trying to impose their ethno-nationalist shit all across Europe? sound familiar?
at what point DO we say, hey maybe we DON'T want fascism on the rise in Europe once again, and certainly don't want to be instrumental in weaponizing as much. and not just some fringe groups in the "BuT EvErY CoUnTrY HaS NaZiS!!!" kinda way, but in an alarmingly state-supported kinda way. You seent what happened last time, right?
(mjl can we please be on the same side here? I'm trying to be CONCERNED about the rise of nazism, not just shrug it off like so many others wanna do!)
I think it's that so many of you guys don't even realize how conditioned we are to reduce it to some good guy bad guy narrative and just "pick a side," and it bugs you that I'd rather pick some more comprehensive anti-war stance instead.
but most of all, I'm bummed this is so divisive. I'd rather just get along. I don't think we're nearly as far off as we think. I'm thinking about remaining this thread in the hopes it might just blow over.
[/quote]
