5 ms·

Thank you. As someone who lived through the end of the cold war, I have no desire to go back to that (legitimately fearing for worldwide nuclear holocaust) and

Thank you. As someone who lived through the end of the cold war, I have no desire to go back to that (legitimately fearing for worldwide nuclear holocaust) and I don't understand why in 2018 some people are so enthusiastic about pitting Russia against the United States again. We made major strides in our relationship with them and now it seems like those have been erased in the name of local politics. Doesn't seem like a wise decision.

rbanffy 8y ago
> We made major strides in our relationship with them Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been. Had Russia become a democracy, it'd be different, but an autocrat with profound disregard for foreign democratic institutions would never be a good friend.
- malvosenior 8y ago
  Every major political power (including/especially the US) does this and it's never cut and dry good vs. evil. Russia's actions are the same and as someone living in the US there's nothing they are doing that justifies putting the entire planet at risk by reigniting our tensions with them. The cold war was an entirely different thing. It wasn't a local skirmish, it was doomsday hanging over the world every day for 40 years.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  > Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things... Is this not exactly what the US (and its allies, including my country) are doing in the middle east?
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    And it's be perfectly understandable that many of the countries where such acts happen are not exactly friends of the US.
- erw1 8y ago
  >Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been. That describes US policy over the last 20 years. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
  - mr_overalls 8y ago
    Tu quoque fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    - erw1 8y ago
      If you expect people to stop doing something disagreeable, you better make sure you are not deeply engaged in the same type of behavior. That seems fairly straight-forward.
      - mr_overalls 8y ago
        It's not straightforward - that's exactly the point of the tu quoque fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque As an individual American who is not involved in intelligence or military work, I can condemn such actions by any nation while maintaining moral consistency.
        erw1 8y ago
        The point of that wiki article (tu quoque fallacy) is that the critic's moral character is irrelevant. The whole point is that you don't need 'moral consistency' to critique bad behavior. So then why do you feel the need to justify yourself by saying that you don't work in defense? :) You basically stepped into the same trap you warmed me against :) Maintaining moral high ground seems to be a vital need, something on the level of instinct it seems. 'Tu quoque' or no 'tu quoque' we like to feel morally justified.
    - roenxi 8y ago
      That isn't actually the tu quoque fallacy, although it does look quite similar at first glance. A = [commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things] B = [made this relationship a lot less attractive] C = [it is wise to improve our relationship] The original claim is A -> B, A(Russia) -> True. The response is that A -> B, A(US) -> True. Therefore, if C(US), C(Russia) is also not ruled out. Logically sound. This isn't claiming that rbanffy's argument is wrong because A(rbanffy). I suspect rbanffy is probably not even committing murders on foregin soil, le alone the other stuff, so it isn't a tu quoque fallacy. It is just pointing out that A isn't an international norm for cutting off productive relationships.
- 13years 8y ago
  This is a very one sided viewpoint. If we are going to attempt to understand why the current state of matters exists in the way it does, we need to include much broader context. For example, whenever someone brings up Ukraine, when is the last time they also provided the historical context just prior to the Russian escalation? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy-21803 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukra...
  - rbanffy 8y ago
    Seriously?! Giving cookies to protesters vs. invading the country? Or are you comparing the cookies to hacking a candidate's e-mail server and offering the e-mails to the opposing candidate?
    - 13years 8y ago
      Seriously? did you read the article? Talk about selective observance to the extreme. The irony of such a response on thread that started with context is important and you immediately disregard all context not inline with your narrative. Just a bit of what you might missed. "...It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance..."
      - codedokode 8y ago
        So you are saying US paid to everyone of tens of thousand people protesting against cancelling agreements with EU? So you think that protests only happen when US pays for them? And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.

rbanffy 8y ago

> We made major strides in our relationship with them Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been. Had Russia become a democracy, it'd be different, but an autocrat with profound disregard for foreign democratic institutions would never be a good friend.

malvosenior 8y ago
Every major political power (including/especially the US) does this and it's never cut and dry good vs. evil. Russia's actions are the same and as someone living in the US there's nothing they are doing that justifies putting the entire planet at risk by reigniting our tensions with them. The cold war was an entirely different thing. It wasn't a local skirmish, it was doomsday hanging over the world every day for 40 years.
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
> Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things... Is this not exactly what the US (and its allies, including my country) are doing in the middle east?
- rbanffy 8y ago
  And it's be perfectly understandable that many of the countries where such acts happen are not exactly friends of the US.
erw1 8y ago
>Unfortunately, they decided to commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things that made this relationship a lot less attractive than it could have been. That describes US policy over the last 20 years. The lack of self-awareness is astounding.
- mr_overalls 8y ago
  Tu quoque fallacy. Two wrongs don't make a right.
  - erw1 8y ago
    If you expect people to stop doing something disagreeable, you better make sure you are not deeply engaged in the same type of behavior. That seems fairly straight-forward.
    - mr_overalls 8y ago
      It's not straightforward - that's exactly the point of the tu quoque fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque As an individual American who is not involved in intelligence or military work, I can condemn such actions by any nation while maintaining moral consistency.
      - erw1 8y ago
        The point of that wiki article (tu quoque fallacy) is that the critic's moral character is irrelevant. The whole point is that you don't need 'moral consistency' to critique bad behavior. So then why do you feel the need to justify yourself by saying that you don't work in defense? :) You basically stepped into the same trap you warmed me against :) Maintaining moral high ground seems to be a vital need, something on the level of instinct it seems. 'Tu quoque' or no 'tu quoque' we like to feel morally justified.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    That isn't actually the tu quoque fallacy, although it does look quite similar at first glance. A = [commit murders on foreign soil, invade other countries and other nasty things] B = [made this relationship a lot less attractive] C = [it is wise to improve our relationship] The original claim is A -> B, A(Russia) -> True. The response is that A -> B, A(US) -> True. Therefore, if C(US), C(Russia) is also not ruled out. Logically sound. This isn't claiming that rbanffy's argument is wrong because A(rbanffy). I suspect rbanffy is probably not even committing murders on foregin soil, le alone the other stuff, so it isn't a tu quoque fallacy. It is just pointing out that A isn't an international norm for cutting off productive relationships.
13years 8y ago
This is a very one sided viewpoint. If we are going to attempt to understand why the current state of matters exists in the way it does, we need to include much broader context. For example, whenever someone brings up Ukraine, when is the last time they also provided the historical context just prior to the Russian escalation? https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy-21803 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/americas-ukra...
- rbanffy 8y ago
  Seriously?! Giving cookies to protesters vs. invading the country? Or are you comparing the cookies to hacking a candidate's e-mail server and offering the e-mails to the opposing candidate?
  - 13years 8y ago
    Seriously? did you read the article? Talk about selective observance to the extreme. The irony of such a response on thread that started with context is important and you immediately disregard all context not inline with your narrative. Just a bit of what you might missed. "...It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland-Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro-Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance..."
    - codedokode 8y ago
      So you are saying US paid to everyone of tens of thousand people protesting against cancelling agreements with EU? So you think that protests only happen when US pays for them? And whatever US did doesn't justify using political instability to annex a part of Ukraine. Russia did it because it could and there was an opportunity.