3 ms·

> So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. Actually, the pe

> So now you really have to call into question everything that was said from the people with the perspective that Putin is a genius tactician. Actually, the people who spent the last half-decade telling me that Putin was "playing chess" are the exact same people who are now telling me he's unhinged and mentally ill and that we need to send F-16s to Poland. But really, the specifics don't matter to me. Biolabs or not, doesn't matter. Putin is a genius with a legitimate beef or he's a nutjob with a brain tumor and short-man syndrome, doesn't matter. imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. It's probably good I'm in an armchair. But from where I'm sitting, the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question. I was an adult during the Iraq War. I'm cynical, and that clouds my judgement.

danaris 5y ago
> imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. This is called "appeasement", and when you practice it with aggressively expansionist dictators, all it gets you is lots of land conquered by them and people killed before you actually admit that they need to be stopped.
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  The difference here is that Putin has thousands of nukes. That means we can't "just stop" him. It sucks. If Hitler had nukes, Nazi Germany would probably still exist in some form. I just don't see a viable endgame short of an internal Russian revolution that takes out Putin. Until then, the only truly defendable border stops at NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO. Yes, the situation is tragic.
epakai 5y ago
What if there's no avoiding WW3? Short of a collapse in Russia there doesn't seem to be a path back from this effort. Nothing in the past decade has put a damper on Putin's empire rebuilding.
ModernMech 5y ago
> imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. I have to point out that this is also a Kremlin talking point, the idea that we should just let Russia have Ukraine because otherwise Russia will nuke the world, is literal Russian propaganda. > the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question. It's not "whenever anyone" asks a question, it's specifically when people who have steeped themselves in conservative media are saying the same things that the Kremlin is saying, almost in lock step. I understand you don't want to hear that your words are aligned with Russian propaganda, but that's what I see happening right now. The sentiments you are typing to me are the same sentiments I have seen for weeks coming from the Kremlin. My belief is that this is not organic. I'm not calling you a Russian agent or anything, because I think I laid out clearly in my original post how you're getting to these conclusions. Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media that is being re-broadcast without censor on Russian state TV, because it's that on-message with typical Russian State TV broadcasts? If you are that would explain a lot. And as far as the specifics of Putin's psyche not mattering to you, well I think it does. Because if you believe that Ukraine should surrender and that would be the best for everyone and avoid WWIII, you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine. If that's the case, surrendering Ukraine would not only not avoid WWIII, it would make it more likely because Russia would be emboldened and enriched. How you feel about that question speaks to how you feel about Putin, and what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him. Which, I for one, don't agree with.
- brandonmenc 5y ago
  > I have to point out that this is also a Kremlin talking point Sigh. Putin has nukes. Comparing him to say, Hitler - and wondering "what if back then we had acted earlier" - ignores this very important point. The present calculation is wildly different. Look. I don't want to appease Putin. He is a bad guy. But he has nukes. Every possible outcome is far from optimal. If that position happens to intersect with "Russian propaganda", so be it. > he won't stop at Ukraine Putin will not invade an actual NATO country. I have to believe that anyone arguing otherwise is just out of their mind. Maybe I'm being naive, but I really just don't see it happening. > Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media I'm a paying subscriber to the NYT and that's where I get most of my facts and "real news." Yes, I roll my eyes at the opinion section and at the typical NYT commenter, but I consider their regular reporting to be about as close to the facts as you can get. However, yannow, the NYT was also telling us Iraq had WMD, so I don't just knee-jerk believe everything they publish. I don't watch TV. When I go home and they're watching Fox News, I'm rolling my eyes there too. If anything, I'm a contrarian because we've been burned so many times when putting blind trust in the media. > what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him I would prefer Putin to not attack Ukraine. That said, there is a reason why Ukraine isn't in NATO - because it is not defendable. Why? Because Russia has nukes. That's how I read this. Whether Putin is acting rationally or not is irrelevant. War drums are being beat but this time there are thousands of nukes pointed at us. What would you have us do? EDIT: > you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine. You're also doing the same thing - assuming that Putin is insane enough to invade NATO but also not insane enough to launch a nuke. Which seems far less likely than Putin being "insane" enough to take Ukraine and stop once he hits NATO.

danaris 5y ago

> imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. This is called "appeasement", and when you practice it with aggressively expansionist dictators, all it gets you is lots of land conquered by them and people killed before you actually admit that they need to be stopped.

brandonmenc 5y ago
The difference here is that Putin has thousands of nukes. That means we can't "just stop" him. It sucks. If Hitler had nukes, Nazi Germany would probably still exist in some form. I just don't see a viable endgame short of an internal Russian revolution that takes out Putin. Until then, the only truly defendable border stops at NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO. Yes, the situation is tragic.

epakai 5y ago

What if there's no avoiding WW3? Short of a collapse in Russia there doesn't seem to be a path back from this effort. Nothing in the past decade has put a damper on Putin's empire rebuilding.

ModernMech 5y ago

> imo we should just be avoiding WW3. Everything else is secondary. Maybe that means Ukraine is not defendable. I have to point out that this is also a Kremlin talking point, the idea that we should just let Russia have Ukraine because otherwise Russia will nuke the world, is literal Russian propaganda. > the people who seem to be getting us closer to nuclear war are also the ones yelling "you're carrying water for Putin!" whenever anyone asks a question. It's not "whenever anyone" asks a question, it's specifically when people who have steeped themselves in conservative media are saying the same things that the Kremlin is saying, almost in lock step. I understand you don't want to hear that your words are aligned with Russian propaganda, but that's what I see happening right now. The sentiments you are typing to me are the same sentiments I have seen for weeks coming from the Kremlin. My belief is that this is not organic. I'm not calling you a Russian agent or anything, because I think I laid out clearly in my original post how you're getting to these conclusions. Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media that is being re-broadcast without censor on Russian state TV, because it's that on-message with typical Russian State TV broadcasts? If you are that would explain a lot. And as far as the specifics of Putin's psyche not mattering to you, well I think it does. Because if you believe that Ukraine should surrender and that would be the best for everyone and avoid WWIII, you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine. If that's the case, surrendering Ukraine would not only not avoid WWIII, it would make it more likely because Russia would be emboldened and enriched. How you feel about that question speaks to how you feel about Putin, and what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him. Which, I for one, don't agree with.

brandonmenc 5y ago
> I have to point out that this is also a Kremlin talking point Sigh. Putin has nukes. Comparing him to say, Hitler - and wondering "what if back then we had acted earlier" - ignores this very important point. The present calculation is wildly different. Look. I don't want to appease Putin. He is a bad guy. But he has nukes. Every possible outcome is far from optimal. If that position happens to intersect with "Russian propaganda", so be it. > he won't stop at Ukraine Putin will not invade an actual NATO country. I have to believe that anyone arguing otherwise is just out of their mind. Maybe I'm being naive, but I really just don't see it happening. > Obviously you read Greenwald, but are you also consuming the American conservative media I'm a paying subscriber to the NYT and that's where I get most of my facts and "real news." Yes, I roll my eyes at the opinion section and at the typical NYT commenter, but I consider their regular reporting to be about as close to the facts as you can get. However, yannow, the NYT was also telling us Iraq had WMD, so I don't just knee-jerk believe everything they publish. I don't watch TV. When I go home and they're watching Fox News, I'm rolling my eyes there too. If anything, I'm a contrarian because we've been burned so many times when putting blind trust in the media. > what I understand from your comments to me, is that he's rationally attacking Ukraine for legitimate reasons that will be assuaged by ceding the country to him I would prefer Putin to not attack Ukraine. That said, there is a reason why Ukraine isn't in NATO - because it is not defendable. Why? Because Russia has nukes. That's how I read this. Whether Putin is acting rationally or not is irrelevant. War drums are being beat but this time there are thousands of nukes pointed at us. What would you have us do? EDIT: > you're tacitly making a judgement about Putin's psyche; you believe that if he gets Ukraine he would stop invading other countries. Because why wouldn't he, he's not crazy, right? Or maybe he is and he won't stop at Ukraine. You're also doing the same thing - assuming that Putin is insane enough to invade NATO but also not insane enough to launch a nuke. Which seems far less likely than Putin being "insane" enough to take Ukraine and stop once he hits NATO.