5 ms·

> So no amount of logic, moral argumentation matter, and links to mainstream sources, words of the very political involved in brokering peace, or polls sampling

by mopsi 4y ago

> So no amount of logic, moral argumentation matter, and links to mainstream sources, words of the very political involved in brokering peace, or polls sampling billions of people are dismissed as "propaganda"? Your long, bitter and whiny rants are based on random scraps and fall apart on closer inspection. For example, saying that GWB was forcing Ukraine into NATO is incorrect and absurd; NATO is a very exclusive club hesitant to accept any new members, because it increases commitments of existing members and provides access to their internal defence information. The initiative to join NATO has always come from Eastern European governments, not somehow forced upon them. This is clear, obvious, well documented. Claiming anything else is either ignorance or malicious lying akin to saying that Bob Hope was the 40th president of the US -- plain wrong without any room for debate.

EGreg 4y ago
I am citing polls of the population, from mainstream poll organizations. Pew Research and Gallup published these polls. I cited Pew Research in 2010 and here is Gallup in 2008 which puts the lie to “open door policy”: https://news.gallup.com/poll/104356/ukrainians-see-more-value-ties-russia-than-us.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/104356/ukrainians-see-more-valu... My whole point as a libertarian is that these governments fail to serve the people well or even represent the people. The people themselves don’t want to fight and kill the other population, or to escalate. You’re attacking a strawman. When Yanukovich blocks the EU association agreement, to accept a $15B loan and cheap fuel from Russia, you say he is a stooge of Russia, and support a popular uprising that ousted him and destabilized the country (much like happened in Yemen). But when Yuschenko his predecessor works to get Ukraine into NATO despite a solid majority of Ukrainians opposing it (as per mainstream polls), you don’t call him a stooge of NATO or a Western puppet. Why? The labels are just tools of public propaganda. Putin and Assad are called brutal dictators, but the Saudi monarchy who don’t even have the pretense of elections are not called unelected dictators, nor are Saudi war crimes and starving of Yemen described in the same terms by USA as they do for lesser things by our stated enemies (Shias mostly). In short, not only is there “room for debate” but every government + media including our own is super biased and selectively paints some groups as bad while other far worse groups are given a pass. By any measure, Ukrainians did not want to be in NATO any more than Iraqis wanted to be liberated, or Muslims hated us for our freedoms. These were all slogans cooked up by the politicians during Bush admin (“Islamofascist” didn’t poll well so they changed the rhetoric to fit — that’s what they do.) USA was always going to push for Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, and oust Assad in Syria, not because of anything they publicly say but because that would take away Russia’s last allies, get them surrounded, and we’d rather they fight Ukraine over there than us over here after they got stronger. That’s the real geopolitical calculus, and same coming up with QUAD in China. This isn’t even that hard to believe — sadly, no country’s government wants its geopolitical rivals healing divisions with their neighbors and getting stronger. They want them divided and fighting. And if they can increase their own influence around the world, they will do it. This is how every proxy war started. And frankly, if as you say NATO accepted countries when their governments wanted to join, they’d accept Russia. They officially rejected USSR in 1954 “without discussion” calling the application a joke. After USSR fell apart, Yeltsin did everything the Americans wanted, pushing thru Chicago-school “shock therapy” reforms and even firing on the parliament building and arresting his own parliament in the 1993 constitutonal crisis as a result. The USA proudly meddled in Russian elections in 1996 to get him reelected after a 6% (!!) approval rating and Times Magazine featured Yeltsin holding an American flag with “Yanks to the Rescue” on the cover (imagine the reverse). Surely Yeltsin was so much “our guy” that we’d listen to his security concerns, right? WRONG. Yeltsin officially protesting NATO expansion during Clinton’s admin was met with “sit down boy and be quiet”. And Putin asking for Russia to get into NATO was rejected. Is Russia less democratic than Turkey, a NATO member? Is it more corrupt than Ukraine and Georgia? All these rationalizations for why Ukraine and Georgia but not Russia — never Russia — are a smokescreen for what I said above. It’s realpolitik.
- mopsi 4y ago
  Again, you offer nothing but a barrage of lies. Lets take one lie at a time: > And Putin asking for Russia to get into NATO was rejected. Never happened. According to Putin's top advisor on foreign policy at the time, Putin asked Lord Robertson for invitation into NATO. Robertson replied that Russia would have to go through the same integration process as everyone else. Putin got offended by that, replied that he was "not going to stand in line with countries that don't matter", and that was the end of it. It was never a serious goal that Putin and Russia worked towards, as it was in other Eastern European countries that set NATO membership as their main foreign policy goal and began building a relationship with NATO with the ultimate goal of becaoming a full member. NATO membership comes with political, legal and military obligations that Russia never even set out to meet. You don't get a seat at a collective defense organization and access to allied military information just by asking someone nicely at a formal dinner. In Eastern Europe, it took a decade of relentless political and military reforms to get there. In most of Eastern Europe, consecutive governments all agreed to this goal and there was no domestic indecision to stall the process. In Ukraine, public support was much smaller indeed, some parties were for NATO membership, others were against it, and as a result, without continuous work towards becoming a member, Ukraine did not become one, even though key figures like GWB signaled willingness to support that bid. In Russia, there was no work towards NATO membership at all. In contrast, Lithuanian parliament adopted a resolution calling for NATO membership as early as December 1993, reiterated the position throughout key foreign policy documents (such as the law on national security, adopted 19th December 1996), joined all sorts of NATO programs and committees, went through a shitload of reforms under NATO guidance and finally achieved full membership in 2004. What did Russia do at the same time? Asked NATO secretary general Lord Robertson a free pass and that's it? That's the whole rejection? Has Russian Duma even once voted NATO membership into their foreign policy doctrine?
  - EGreg 4y ago
    In the interest of upholding intellectual integrity, I will admit you have a point, that we don’t actually have a recent official request from Russia to join NATO. On the other hand, to pretend that this process is somehow all about clear rules and truly open door policies, is very disingenuous. Are you saying that this is what Russia would need to do: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ofIQi5XVY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ofIQi5XVY Obviously, it’s silly. There are a lot of unspoken considerations for which country gets into NATO and which country is pushed into it despite what their citizens want. Rule #1 is: Russia never gets in, that would be like China getting into QUAD. If Russia joined NATO, its raison d’etre would be obsolete, and moreover, USA (its main member) would be increasingly unnecessary since Russia would be then selling and using its weapons for European security. That is competition USA does not want. And look, USSR formally applied in 1954, and was rejected without any formal discussion! That is not a lie but simply a fact, and reported by NY Times back then: https://www.nytimes.com/1954/04/01/archives/soviet-in-bid-to-join-nato-u-s-says-no-offer-by-molotov.html https://www.nytimes.com/1954/04/01/archives/soviet-in-bid-to... Similarly, mainstream outlets also reported as early as 2001 that Putin continuously and repeatedly advocated for Russia to be in NATO: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-i... And back in 2001 NYTimes reported how Bush anyway pushed for NATO to go right up to Russia’s border… https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/cordial-rivals-how-bush-and-putin-became-friends.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/cordial-rivals-how-... My characterization is quite accurate as to the main causes of this. Some even said Bush was pushing to go into Iraq on “day 1”… whether that is true or not is unclear because governments are opaque, but we DO KNOW that Bush was the biggest force behind the push to keep expanding NATO to Russia’s border and get Ukraine and Georgia in, so you downplaying that is disingenuous. It was a very destructive push by Bush. And nearly all of the foreign policy experts in USA, as well as his own ambassadors etc. ALL WARNED BUSH AND CLINTON against this, and predicted this exact outcome. https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-decades-... In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” So this reaction by Russia acting like a cornered animal before it is completely surrounded is not “unprovoked”. It was systematically provoked, and tried every other avenue to stop this — except FORMALLY applying to NATO, which I blame Putin for. Of course, Russia’s politicians are just as negligent and dumb as other countries’ politicians. Putin should have applied every year, and publicly lampooned the rejections year after year. He should have worked on having better PR for Russia’s positions to be heard in the West. RT was not enough. But to blame solely Putin? No, that is simply regurgitating propaganda.

by mopsi 4y ago

EGreg 4y ago

I am citing polls of the population, from mainstream poll organizations. Pew Research and Gallup published these polls. I cited Pew Research in 2010 and here is Gallup in 2008 which puts the lie to “open door policy”: https://news.gallup.com/poll/104356/ukrainians-see-more-value-ties-russia-than-us.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/104356/ukrainians-see-more-valu... My whole point as a libertarian is that these governments fail to serve the people well or even represent the people. The people themselves don’t want to fight and kill the other population, or to escalate. You’re attacking a strawman. When Yanukovich blocks the EU association agreement, to accept a $15B loan and cheap fuel from Russia, you say he is a stooge of Russia, and support a popular uprising that ousted him and destabilized the country (much like happened in Yemen). But when Yuschenko his predecessor works to get Ukraine into NATO despite a solid majority of Ukrainians opposing it (as per mainstream polls), you don’t call him a stooge of NATO or a Western puppet. Why? The labels are just tools of public propaganda. Putin and Assad are called brutal dictators, but the Saudi monarchy who don’t even have the pretense of elections are not called unelected dictators, nor are Saudi war crimes and starving of Yemen described in the same terms by USA as they do for lesser things by our stated enemies (Shias mostly). In short, not only is there “room for debate” but every government + media including our own is super biased and selectively paints some groups as bad while other far worse groups are given a pass. By any measure, Ukrainians did not want to be in NATO any more than Iraqis wanted to be liberated, or Muslims hated us for our freedoms. These were all slogans cooked up by the politicians during Bush admin (“Islamofascist” didn’t poll well so they changed the rhetoric to fit — that’s what they do.) USA was always going to push for Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, and oust Assad in Syria, not because of anything they publicly say but because that would take away Russia’s last allies, get them surrounded, and we’d rather they fight Ukraine over there than us over here after they got stronger. That’s the real geopolitical calculus, and same coming up with QUAD in China. This isn’t even that hard to believe — sadly, no country’s government wants its geopolitical rivals healing divisions with their neighbors and getting stronger. They want them divided and fighting. And if they can increase their own influence around the world, they will do it. This is how every proxy war started. And frankly, if as you say NATO accepted countries when their governments wanted to join, they’d accept Russia. They officially rejected USSR in 1954 “without discussion” calling the application a joke. After USSR fell apart, Yeltsin did everything the Americans wanted, pushing thru Chicago-school “shock therapy” reforms and even firing on the parliament building and arresting his own parliament in the 1993 constitutonal crisis as a result. The USA proudly meddled in Russian elections in 1996 to get him reelected after a 6% (!!) approval rating and Times Magazine featured Yeltsin holding an American flag with “Yanks to the Rescue” on the cover (imagine the reverse). Surely Yeltsin was so much “our guy” that we’d listen to his security concerns, right? WRONG. Yeltsin officially protesting NATO expansion during Clinton’s admin was met with “sit down boy and be quiet”. And Putin asking for Russia to get into NATO was rejected. Is Russia less democratic than Turkey, a NATO member? Is it more corrupt than Ukraine and Georgia? All these rationalizations for why Ukraine and Georgia but not Russia — never Russia — are a smokescreen for what I said above. It’s realpolitik.

mopsi 4y ago
Again, you offer nothing but a barrage of lies. Lets take one lie at a time: > And Putin asking for Russia to get into NATO was rejected. Never happened. According to Putin's top advisor on foreign policy at the time, Putin asked Lord Robertson for invitation into NATO. Robertson replied that Russia would have to go through the same integration process as everyone else. Putin got offended by that, replied that he was "not going to stand in line with countries that don't matter", and that was the end of it. It was never a serious goal that Putin and Russia worked towards, as it was in other Eastern European countries that set NATO membership as their main foreign policy goal and began building a relationship with NATO with the ultimate goal of becaoming a full member. NATO membership comes with political, legal and military obligations that Russia never even set out to meet. You don't get a seat at a collective defense organization and access to allied military information just by asking someone nicely at a formal dinner. In Eastern Europe, it took a decade of relentless political and military reforms to get there. In most of Eastern Europe, consecutive governments all agreed to this goal and there was no domestic indecision to stall the process. In Ukraine, public support was much smaller indeed, some parties were for NATO membership, others were against it, and as a result, without continuous work towards becoming a member, Ukraine did not become one, even though key figures like GWB signaled willingness to support that bid. In Russia, there was no work towards NATO membership at all. In contrast, Lithuanian parliament adopted a resolution calling for NATO membership as early as December 1993, reiterated the position throughout key foreign policy documents (such as the law on national security, adopted 19th December 1996), joined all sorts of NATO programs and committees, went through a shitload of reforms under NATO guidance and finally achieved full membership in 2004. What did Russia do at the same time? Asked NATO secretary general Lord Robertson a free pass and that's it? That's the whole rejection? Has Russian Duma even once voted NATO membership into their foreign policy doctrine?
- EGreg 4y ago
  In the interest of upholding intellectual integrity, I will admit you have a point, that we don’t actually have a recent official request from Russia to join NATO. On the other hand, to pretend that this process is somehow all about clear rules and truly open door policies, is very disingenuous. Are you saying that this is what Russia would need to do: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ofIQi5XVY https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=W6ofIQi5XVY Obviously, it’s silly. There are a lot of unspoken considerations for which country gets into NATO and which country is pushed into it despite what their citizens want. Rule #1 is: Russia never gets in, that would be like China getting into QUAD. If Russia joined NATO, its raison d’etre would be obsolete, and moreover, USA (its main member) would be increasingly unnecessary since Russia would be then selling and using its weapons for European security. That is competition USA does not want. And look, USSR formally applied in 1954, and was rejected without any formal discussion! That is not a lie but simply a fact, and reported by NY Times back then: https://www.nytimes.com/1954/04/01/archives/soviet-in-bid-to-join-nato-u-s-says-no-offer-by-molotov.html https://www.nytimes.com/1954/04/01/archives/soviet-in-bid-to... Similarly, mainstream outlets also reported as early as 2001 that Putin continuously and repeatedly advocated for Russia to be in NATO: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-is-right-russia-belongs-in-nato/377557/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2001/08/putin-i... And back in 2001 NYTimes reported how Bush anyway pushed for NATO to go right up to Russia’s border… https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/cordial-rivals-how-bush-and-putin-became-friends.html https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/18/world/cordial-rivals-how-... My characterization is quite accurate as to the main causes of this. Some even said Bush was pushing to go into Iraq on “day 1”… whether that is true or not is unclear because governments are opaque, but we DO KNOW that Bush was the biggest force behind the push to keep expanding NATO to Russia’s border and get Ukraine and Georgia in, so you downplaying that is disingenuous. It was a very destructive push by Bush. And nearly all of the foreign policy experts in USA, as well as his own ambassadors etc. ALL WARNED BUSH AND CLINTON against this, and predicted this exact outcome. https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-decades-of-warnings-that-nato-expansion-into-eastern-europe-could-provoke-russia-177999 https://theconversation.com/amp/ukraine-war-follows-decades-... In June 1997, 50 prominent foreign policy experts signed an open letter to Clinton, saying, “We believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO … is a policy error of historic proportions” that would “unsettle European stability.” In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.” So this reaction by Russia acting like a cornered animal before it is completely surrounded is not “unprovoked”. It was systematically provoked, and tried every other avenue to stop this — except FORMALLY applying to NATO, which I blame Putin for. Of course, Russia’s politicians are just as negligent and dumb as other countries’ politicians. Putin should have applied every year, and publicly lampooned the rejections year after year. He should have worked on having better PR for Russia’s positions to be heard in the West. RT was not enough. But to blame solely Putin? No, that is simply regurgitating propaganda.