This war would have been long over were the comedian/actor/sockpuppet Zelensky not continually armed by Rayconn and the like and its P.R. flacks, the US government. DC is doing exactly what it did in 1917, making things worse by opportunism disguised as idealism.
Yes, the war/'special military operation' would have been long over if Ukraine had not been able to defend itself with the aid of the US and NATO..... and that's a *good* thing? Really? So, you're OK with apparently strong countries taking chunks out of supposedly weaker countries any time they like? How is enabling Ukraine to defend itself and, ultimately, defeating Russia in the field (which it will), 'making things worse'? Do you think the Russians would be happy with the areas they 'annexed' and then stop? If they'd had an easy invasion, instead of getting their collective asses handed to them repeatedly, don't you think they'd just take another chunk and then another until they think its OK to take a chunk of Poland or the Baltic states thereby triggering WW3? Don't you think that Russia should be stopped in Ukraine and, one way or another, stopped from doing this shit anywhere else?
I'm not OK with a lot of things, but I don't believe in making them worse. When someone is frustrated and abusive at the library, you know what doesn't work? Yelling back at them. I don't tell people that their complaints are ridiculous, that they're acting like children, or insist thy respect my authoriteh. Instead, I do my best to try to take their frustrations seriously. I try to figure out what they need so that the peace can be maintained, even at the cost of my ego. I ***deescalate***. Responses to injustice often create greater problems. Let's say, for instance, that there was a bad politician -- and someone shot him. The assassinated is now a martyr. Now the situation is worse, because the bad politician has been immediately replaced by a like-minded comrade who can now operate under the halo of martyrdom. To use a less general example: I thoroughly believe the South was within its rights to secede in 1860, but that it was wrong to fire on the ships attempting to resupply Ft Sumter and that Lincoln was doubly wrong to call for a general invasion of the South. Both made a situation worse. Both chose bellicosity instead of diplomacy, and half a million young men paid for it with their lives.
Those who watch the western media believe this is a straightforward story of the Bad Old Russians attacking the pure damsel in distress, Ukraine. It's nonsense. This is not a story that began in February. It began in the 1990s, when DC reneged on George HW Bush's promise to not expand NATO. Clinton, Junior Bush, Obama, et al have all steadily pushed eastwards into Russia's backyard. Would DC accept, for a moment, Russian missiles in Cuba? No. Would it tolerate Chinese bases in Mexico and Canada? Not for a second. Yet DC beats its chest in indignation when the cornered dog growls and snaps back. We've seen chapters of this story in Kosovo in 99, in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014 when the stooge Zelensky was installed in a coup when the elected government was deemed by DC to be too pro-Russian. Putin and his supporters regard him as the man who redeemed Russia's humiliation in the early 1990s. who has resisted DC's enroaches consistently, if not effectively. His goal, as I understand it, was to convince the West that he was prepared to defend Russians in the Donbass, and Russian interests in connection with those provinces, with arms. I don't think he should have done that, because now a country that once had a kinship with Russia will be alienated from it, perhaps for ever. But instead of trying to foment peace, the west instead insists on Russian defeat and humiliation. I think Putin is the kind of man who believes death is preferable to humiliation.
That's a lot of ranting. Long story short, I think the people of Ukraine are pawns in DC's prolonged attempt to ensure its own hegemony, Russia be damned (and let's pretend the Chinese don't exist because they own all our debt), and Putin's murderously aggressive but absolutely understandable efforts to prevent Russia from becoming a pawn or a has-been. I don't like him, but I'm not stupid enough to complain because the growling dog in the corner bit me when I tried to kick him.
As for Russian expansionism, no. I don't regard Putin as a would-be Napoleon. Seizing the Donbass is a path to maintain Ukraine as a shield against NATO and protecting Russian ownership of Crimea.
As you probably imagine I'm going to disagree with pretty much everything you said. Firstly, and most importantly, the desire of Ukraine to eventually join NATO and the EU is not an excuse to attack and invade it. If that was the case then Finland would be next in line. Except Russia has now shown the world how 2nd, or even 3rd, rate its armed forces are meaning that Finland would definitely kick its ass, just as they did in 1939.
Russia may, for its own reasons, want a 'buffer zone' between itself & NATO but you can't always have want you want, can you. NATO is not a threat to Russia. Why would it be or want to be? NATO was never going to attack Russia. That's stupid on the face of it. Russia has nukes (though how many of them would fly or work is anyone's guess after the fiasco we're seeing of the Russian forces in Ukraine) so attacking it for no good reason is crazy. Plus Russia is in terminal demographic decline. All NATO needs to do is wait a few generations.
Even if Putin just wants to secure Russia's borders and its future he's going about it in just about the most opposite way imaginable. Not only has he ruined forever the idea that Russia is a force to be reckoned with he's also single handed destroyed their economy for years if not decades to come. He has accelerated its decline rather than stopped it. After this is all over and Ukraine has retaken all of its territory back (including Crimea) Russia will be a spent force and its peripheral territories will start breaking away. In a few generations from now Russia will be a rump of a nation of the Eastern edge of Europe. All because of Putin's stupid, pointless war.
I don't disagree with Putin's behavior undermining Russia's long-term interests, at least in part. I only maintain that I understand why he believes what he is doing is the pragmatic thing to do. As for attacking Russia...that needn't involve active use of tanks and planes. Incorporating Russia's former neighborhood of Slavic states into some western alliance is an attack enough in isolating it. I don't care if someone holding a gun on me says they're joking or just have it out as a defensive measure, I'm going to regard them as a threat to be overcome until they put the gun away. If NATO doesn't want to be reacted against, it shouldn't act in such a provocative manner to begin with. No one would entertain Ukraine as an ally for any other purpose than to diminish Russia sphere of influence -- nor would the likes of Estonia, etc be considered.
As for disagreeing with everything I say....I'm a libertarian with strong trad-conservative tendencies and some progressive tendencies, a supporter of free markets who hates consumerism, someone who yearns for both order and liberty, a techie who wants to live off-grid, a skeptic who goes to church. If I found someone who agreed with me I'd be confused. ;)
I fail to understand how Ukraine even thinking about joining NATO is an 'attack' on Russia. How exactly is it being 'attacked'? Militarily? Politically? Economically? Culturally? Is the actual invasion of Ukraine with tanks and troops a reasonable response to this perceived 'attack'? Hardly....!
How is Russia being 'isolated' by previous Soviet states joining NATO? NATO did not invade and occupy these countries. They wanted to join NATO (no doubt with memories of previous Soviet occupation fresh in their minds) and were accepted. Russia might feel isolated or rejected because of this but that's zero excuse to attack another country. I really don't understand why the invasion of Ukraine is a reasonable response to anything happening in the local area, in Europe or in the rest of the world.
I do have people who agree on me with some things, but I've never had anyone agree with me on everything! That'd just be WEIRD. I think my most confusing aspect for other people is that I love churches (especially old ones) and am a great admirer of religious art and music yet have zero belief in any religion itself. But then I am a great lover of mysteries so religion is a gift that keeps on giving.... [grin]
War in the Donbass has been going on since 2014. This is just the first time the west has bothered to notice. ;-)
As far as threatening goes -- c'mon. NATO is explicitly an anti-Russian alliance. It was created during the Cold War as a counter to the Soviet Union, and it expands into Russia's neighborhood. NATO might be called into action on token things like the invasion of Afghanistan, but it's the blue team to counter Russia's red team. The whole thing was created to have a 'united nations' type alliance against Russia if there were another Big War in Europe.
So..... After the collapse of the Soviet Union what were the ex-Soviet states (who had been, by and large, not exactly Soviet through much choice in the matter) supposed to do? Enforced neutrality so as not to 'upset' the Russians? Do countries around such 'powers' as Russia *have* to be buffer states no matter what? I don't see the logic? Or are you saying that because they were dominated by Russia for 50 years they must always be in its sphere of influence? Don't they have any choice in the matter?
Countries border each other. Sometimes antagonistic countries border each other. Sometimes antagonistic Empires border each other. That doesn't mean that they are, because of that, 'attacking' the other, 'isolating' the other or 'threatening' each other to the point where the only option remaining is tanks rolling across borders. The expansion or proposed expansion of NATO is not a reasonable excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine or anywhere else.
I can't wait for Russia to have to fuck all the way off and leave. Putin has to give up at some point, even though realistically yes I know that will never happen. That Ukraine has held out so long is a miracle and I can't wait for the day when Russia is sent packing.
I'm guessing by next summer or at worst this time next year - as long as NATO/the West keeps up a reasonable level of support. When Russia finally does leave they're going to be screwed, and rightly so. Bastards.
I hope so, and pray for that daily. Russia needs to be knocked down a peg or two and who would have thought little Ukraine would be the one to do it. We just can't stop supporting them.
11 comments:
This war would have been long over were the comedian/actor/sockpuppet Zelensky not continually armed by Rayconn and the like and its P.R. flacks, the US government. DC is doing exactly what it did in 1917, making things worse by opportunism disguised as idealism.
Yes, the war/'special military operation' would have been long over if Ukraine had not been able to defend itself with the aid of the US and NATO..... and that's a *good* thing? Really? So, you're OK with apparently strong countries taking chunks out of supposedly weaker countries any time they like? How is enabling Ukraine to defend itself and, ultimately, defeating Russia in the field (which it will), 'making things worse'? Do you think the Russians would be happy with the areas they 'annexed' and then stop? If they'd had an easy invasion, instead of getting their collective asses handed to them repeatedly, don't you think they'd just take another chunk and then another until they think its OK to take a chunk of Poland or the Baltic states thereby triggering WW3? Don't you think that Russia should be stopped in Ukraine and, one way or another, stopped from doing this shit anywhere else?
I'm not OK with a lot of things, but I don't believe in making them worse. When someone is frustrated and abusive at the library, you know what doesn't work? Yelling back at them. I don't tell people that their complaints are ridiculous, that they're acting like children, or insist thy respect my authoriteh. Instead, I do my best to try to take their frustrations seriously. I try to figure out what they need so that the peace can be maintained, even at the cost of my ego. I ***deescalate***. Responses to injustice often create greater problems. Let's say, for instance, that there was a bad politician -- and someone shot him. The assassinated is now a martyr. Now the situation is worse, because the bad politician has been immediately replaced by a like-minded comrade who can now operate under the halo of martyrdom. To use a less general example: I thoroughly believe the South was within its rights to secede in 1860, but that it was wrong to fire on the ships attempting to resupply Ft Sumter and that Lincoln was doubly wrong to call for a general invasion of the South. Both made a situation worse. Both chose bellicosity instead of diplomacy, and half a million young men paid for it with their lives.
Those who watch the western media believe this is a straightforward story of the Bad Old Russians attacking the pure damsel in distress, Ukraine. It's nonsense. This is not a story that began in February. It began in the 1990s, when DC reneged on George HW Bush's promise to not expand NATO. Clinton, Junior Bush, Obama, et al have all steadily pushed eastwards into Russia's backyard. Would DC accept, for a moment, Russian missiles in Cuba? No. Would it tolerate Chinese bases in Mexico and Canada? Not for a second. Yet DC beats its chest in indignation when the cornered dog growls and snaps back. We've seen chapters of this story in Kosovo in 99, in Georgia in 2008, in Ukraine in 2014 when the stooge Zelensky was installed in a coup when the elected government was deemed by DC to be too pro-Russian. Putin and his supporters regard him as the man who redeemed Russia's humiliation in the early 1990s. who has resisted DC's enroaches consistently, if not effectively. His goal, as I understand it, was to convince the West that he was prepared to defend Russians in the Donbass, and Russian interests in connection with those provinces, with arms. I don't think he should have done that, because now a country that once had a kinship with Russia will be alienated from it, perhaps for ever. But instead of trying to foment peace, the west instead insists on Russian defeat and humiliation. I think Putin is the kind of man who believes death is preferable to humiliation.
That's a lot of ranting. Long story short, I think the people of Ukraine are pawns in DC's prolonged attempt to ensure its own hegemony, Russia be damned (and let's pretend the Chinese don't exist because they own all our debt), and Putin's murderously aggressive but absolutely understandable efforts to prevent Russia from becoming a pawn or a has-been. I don't like him, but I'm not stupid enough to complain because the growling dog in the corner bit me when I tried to kick him.
As for Russian expansionism, no. I don't regard Putin as a would-be Napoleon. Seizing the Donbass is a path to maintain Ukraine as a shield against NATO and protecting Russian ownership of Crimea.
As you probably imagine I'm going to disagree with pretty much everything you said. Firstly, and most importantly, the desire of Ukraine to eventually join NATO and the EU is not an excuse to attack and invade it. If that was the case then Finland would be next in line. Except Russia has now shown the world how 2nd, or even 3rd, rate its armed forces are meaning that Finland would definitely kick its ass, just as they did in 1939.
Russia may, for its own reasons, want a 'buffer zone' between itself & NATO but you can't always have want you want, can you. NATO is not a threat to Russia. Why would it be or want to be? NATO was never going to attack Russia. That's stupid on the face of it. Russia has nukes (though how many of them would fly or work is anyone's guess after the fiasco we're seeing of the Russian forces in Ukraine) so attacking it for no good reason is crazy. Plus Russia is in terminal demographic decline. All NATO needs to do is wait a few generations.
Even if Putin just wants to secure Russia's borders and its future he's going about it in just about the most opposite way imaginable. Not only has he ruined forever the idea that Russia is a force to be reckoned with he's also single handed destroyed their economy for years if not decades to come. He has accelerated its decline rather than stopped it. After this is all over and Ukraine has retaken all of its territory back (including Crimea) Russia will be a spent force and its peripheral territories will start breaking away. In a few generations from now Russia will be a rump of a nation of the Eastern edge of Europe. All because of Putin's stupid, pointless war.
I don't disagree with Putin's behavior undermining Russia's long-term interests, at least in part. I only maintain that I understand why he believes what he is doing is the pragmatic thing to do. As for attacking Russia...that needn't involve active use of tanks and planes. Incorporating Russia's former neighborhood of Slavic states into some western alliance is an attack enough in isolating it. I don't care if someone holding a gun on me says they're joking or just have it out as a defensive measure, I'm going to regard them as a threat to be overcome until they put the gun away. If NATO doesn't want to be reacted against, it shouldn't act in such a provocative manner to begin with. No one would entertain Ukraine as an ally for any other purpose than to diminish Russia sphere of influence -- nor would the likes of Estonia, etc be considered.
As for disagreeing with everything I say....I'm a libertarian with strong trad-conservative tendencies and some progressive tendencies, a supporter of free markets who hates consumerism, someone who yearns for both order and liberty, a techie who wants to live off-grid, a skeptic who goes to church. If I found someone who agreed with me I'd be confused. ;)
I fail to understand how Ukraine even thinking about joining NATO is an 'attack' on Russia. How exactly is it being 'attacked'? Militarily? Politically? Economically? Culturally? Is the actual invasion of Ukraine with tanks and troops a reasonable response to this perceived 'attack'? Hardly....!
How is Russia being 'isolated' by previous Soviet states joining NATO? NATO did not invade and occupy these countries. They wanted to join NATO (no doubt with memories of previous Soviet occupation fresh in their minds) and were accepted. Russia might feel isolated or rejected because of this but that's zero excuse to attack another country. I really don't understand why the invasion of Ukraine is a reasonable response to anything happening in the local area, in Europe or in the rest of the world.
I do have people who agree on me with some things, but I've never had anyone agree with me on everything! That'd just be WEIRD. I think my most confusing aspect for other people is that I love churches (especially old ones) and am a great admirer of religious art and music yet have zero belief in any religion itself. But then I am a great lover of mysteries so religion is a gift that keeps on giving.... [grin]
War in the Donbass has been going on since 2014. This is just the first time the west has bothered to notice. ;-)
As far as threatening goes -- c'mon. NATO is explicitly an anti-Russian alliance. It was created during the Cold War as a counter to the Soviet Union, and it expands into Russia's neighborhood. NATO might be called into action on token things like the invasion of Afghanistan, but it's the blue team to counter Russia's red team. The whole thing was created to have a 'united nations' type alliance against Russia if there were another Big War in Europe.
So..... After the collapse of the Soviet Union what were the ex-Soviet states (who had been, by and large, not exactly Soviet through much choice in the matter) supposed to do? Enforced neutrality so as not to 'upset' the Russians? Do countries around such 'powers' as Russia *have* to be buffer states no matter what? I don't see the logic? Or are you saying that because they were dominated by Russia for 50 years they must always be in its sphere of influence? Don't they have any choice in the matter?
Countries border each other. Sometimes antagonistic countries border each other. Sometimes antagonistic Empires border each other. That doesn't mean that they are, because of that, 'attacking' the other, 'isolating' the other or 'threatening' each other to the point where the only option remaining is tanks rolling across borders. The expansion or proposed expansion of NATO is not a reasonable excuse for Russia to invade Ukraine or anywhere else.
I can't wait for Russia to have to fuck all the way off and leave. Putin has to give up at some point, even though realistically yes I know that will never happen. That Ukraine has held out so long is a miracle and I can't wait for the day when Russia is sent packing.
I'm guessing by next summer or at worst this time next year - as long as NATO/the West keeps up a reasonable level of support. When Russia finally does leave they're going to be screwed, and rightly so. Bastards.
I hope so, and pray for that daily. Russia needs to be knocked down a peg or two and who would have thought little Ukraine would be the one to do it. We just can't stop supporting them.
Post a Comment