4 ms·

If you could you humor me: if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance? These tensions have been brewing between NATO (

If you could you humor me: if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance? These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers. I don't support the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but it seems like that's the only thing people are focusing on because it makes the situation simple for them, and it's easiest to have a single villain and the rest are the good guys. I assume most people offended by this submission here are American (or at least heavily support America) and want to think of their current government/country as the good guys. I don't think there's any good guys in this situation.

twblalock 4y ago
If there is no evidence my reaction will be the same no matter who gets blamed or who wrote the article.
JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance? Of course. You don't think there are people claiming to have anonymous sources about Putin doing all manner of things?
ohmaigad 4y ago
> These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers. As a person from Eastern Europe this is literal Russian propaganda or in simple words - dogshit. You know why somebody like Baltic countries wanted to get in NATO? Because Russia was/is a genuine threat after these countries were deoccupied from the Soviet Union. Russia thinks that these former Soviet Union countries are still their own property, they can't imagine that these countries don't want to live "the Russian way".
- cdelsolar 4y ago
  why is this downvoted/flagged?
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    Because a rude word is often used as an excuse to dismiss the whole argument.
- ghostwriter 4y ago
  Sorry to tell you, but the US think-tanks have been saying it for years that the Baltic states are there in their current configuration to only restrain Russia from forming closer ties with Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo They even have a term for it - "Cordon sanitaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(internationa...
  - ohmaigad 4y ago
    Oh yes, the mighty Baltic states who are able to somehow lock down Russian ties to Germany. By that logic the NS2 should have never happened or German reliance to Russian gas in general. This sounds like the same stuff Russians were claiming at some point - that the Baltics are the main players in West geopolitics or what not. What that think tank is saying make no sense, as invading/controlling Ukraine is not making a buffer zone as you can't really call something a buffer zone when it is pretty much in Russias pocket. Something like Belarus today is not a buffer zone.
    - ghostwriter 4y ago
      To be frank, they don't mention a thing about the Baltics' might or political prowess, they only enumerate a preferred political alignment in foreing policies of such states so that it becomes instrumental to the US in their own foreign relations with both Germany and Russia.
dang 4y ago
Nothing would be easier than to say "of course we would have the same stance" but I don't want to give you quite that lazy a reply. Your question has too many counterfactual layers to backpropagate an answer through. For example, I doubt that Hersh would publish it in that case. The Hershness of a story depends on it being a blockbuster counter-thing. Edit: oops, I missed that your question wasn't to me. Sorry!
- strawpeople 4y ago
  Saying what amounts to ‘we’d never be in that position’ comes across as pretty evasive. Also saying Hersh only writes this kind of thing supports the idea that Hersh is biased enough to be taken for a ride by a source with an agenda.
  - dang 4y ago
    Ok, if that was too evasive: yes, of course we would have the same stance.
    - strawpeople 4y ago
      Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh. As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘. Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph. ————— strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted? chatgpt: Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting. Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence. In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.

twblalock 4y ago

If there is no evidence my reaction will be the same no matter who gets blamed or who wrote the article.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> if he came out saying Russians blew up the pipeline, would you have the same stance? Of course. You don't think there are people claiming to have anonymous sources about Putin doing all manner of things?

ohmaigad 4y ago

> These tensions have been brewing between NATO (mostly America) and Russia for at least a decade. It's unfortunate that the situation escalated in Ukraine though, which AFAIK is the victim in the scheming and plotting of those two powers. As a person from Eastern Europe this is literal Russian propaganda or in simple words - dogshit. You know why somebody like Baltic countries wanted to get in NATO? Because Russia was/is a genuine threat after these countries were deoccupied from the Soviet Union. Russia thinks that these former Soviet Union countries are still their own property, they can't imagine that these countries don't want to live "the Russian way".

cdelsolar 4y ago
why is this downvoted/flagged?
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  Because a rude word is often used as an excuse to dismiss the whole argument.
ghostwriter 4y ago
Sorry to tell you, but the US think-tanks have been saying it for years that the Baltic states are there in their current configuration to only restrain Russia from forming closer ties with Germany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UcXiUYLgbo They even have a term for it - "Cordon sanitaire": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(international_relations) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordon_sanitaire_(internationa...
- ohmaigad 4y ago
  Oh yes, the mighty Baltic states who are able to somehow lock down Russian ties to Germany. By that logic the NS2 should have never happened or German reliance to Russian gas in general. This sounds like the same stuff Russians were claiming at some point - that the Baltics are the main players in West geopolitics or what not. What that think tank is saying make no sense, as invading/controlling Ukraine is not making a buffer zone as you can't really call something a buffer zone when it is pretty much in Russias pocket. Something like Belarus today is not a buffer zone.
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    To be frank, they don't mention a thing about the Baltics' might or political prowess, they only enumerate a preferred political alignment in foreing policies of such states so that it becomes instrumental to the US in their own foreign relations with both Germany and Russia.

dang 4y ago

Nothing would be easier than to say "of course we would have the same stance" but I don't want to give you quite that lazy a reply. Your question has too many counterfactual layers to backpropagate an answer through. For example, I doubt that Hersh would publish it in that case. The Hershness of a story depends on it being a blockbuster counter-thing. Edit: oops, I missed that your question wasn't to me. Sorry!

strawpeople 4y ago
Saying what amounts to ‘we’d never be in that position’ comes across as pretty evasive. Also saying Hersh only writes this kind of thing supports the idea that Hersh is biased enough to be taken for a ride by a source with an agenda.
- dang 4y ago
  Ok, if that was too evasive: yes, of course we would have the same stance.
  - strawpeople 4y ago
    Presumably not with just anyone who reported that claiming to have a source, but only because it’s Hersh. As far as I can see your position evaluates to ‘dang trusts Hersh‘. Since it’s 2023 and we use machines to do our thinking now, I consulted ChatGPT about this. I draw your attention to the last paragraph. ————— strawpeople: Can Seymour Hersh’s reporting always be trusted? chatgpt: Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who has had a long and storied career. While he has been praised for his investigative reporting and his ability to uncover important stories, it is important to note that not all of his reporting can always be trusted. Like any journalist, Hersh is human and may make mistakes or have biases that affect the accuracy of his reporting. Additionally, some of Hersh's reporting has been called into question, and he has faced criticism for making claims that are not supported by evidence or for relying on sources that are not credible. For example, in 2017, Hersh faced criticism for his reporting on the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria, which some experts said was based on unreliable sources and was contradicted by a large body of evidence. In conclusion, it is important to approach Hersh's reporting with a critical eye and to carefully evaluate the evidence and sources he relies on. While some of his reporting has been praised for its accuracy and impact, it is not always reliable and should be independently verified.