4 ms·

HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a s

by EGreg 3y ago

HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a slam dunk. 1. You are repeating white house talking points. Everything you say aligns perfectly with what the line the white house is pushing. To this you say “I am not defending talking points I’m defending reality.” Funny, so when you do it, you recognize you are trying to defend facts and reality as you know it, and the fact that they align perfectly with all the propaganda out of the white house is irrelevant. When others do the same, it’s talking points and reality doesn’t matter. In other words, a pure double standard, diff rules for thee than for me. Sounds like your whole bunble of US jingoists has the same issue in general, that’s the problem. 2. You asked me to prove that your points align exactly with official US government and white house talking points? Well, here are just a few: a) You consider that this invasion is totally unjustified and unprovoked (not even a little provoked). Actually it never is said in that order by official sources, always “unprovoked and unjustified”. An exact phrase that begs the question from the very beginning, designsd to be systematically repeated by everyone (official government websites and mainstream media repeat it verbatim) enough times that it will right away be accepted as the default position. “The Big Lie”, repeated enough times, already assumes the result. The invasion was unprovoked in every way. End of story. No discussion. Any discussion is “whataboutism”. Also an official talking point I have heard from US jingoists, not just in this war but every war US has been involved in. b) you uncritically repeat that USA is “not involved in this war.” I guess we will have to redefine the word “in” or “involved” to a point that will even make Bill Clinton blush. It depends what your definition of “involved” is, but Bush pushed Ukraine into NATO even when its population didn’t want, when a new guy stopped the NATO deal the USA fomented a revolution in Ukraine to oust him (John McCain personally came to do so), USA trained and armed paramilitary groups including neo-nazi battallions, killed peace deals thay would have stopped the war, and shipped ever-increasing caliber of weapons to Ukraine (starting with Stinger missiles and HIMARS and then Bradley vehicles and Abrams tanks, and now considering sending fighter planes and perhaps even nukes). Their consistent meddling 3000 miles away are a major reason this war happened and is still goimg on, not just in this part of the world but others too. The difference between us is that I am able to admit that Russia was involved since 2014 in escalating the conflict, aiding the rebels. You are UNABLE to admit anything of the sort about USA. Zip, nada. Total alignment with official line of the white house, that USA is not involved in any way, shape or form in this war. b) You’ve also not seriously been able to consider that the CIA has been heavily involvsd (this time they sat out apparently) and wilfully ignored all evidence I presented to the contrary, including the Yahoo story. c) You’ve totally ignored Naftali Bennett’s bombshell revelation that US blocked the peace deal he negotiated as tanks were moving into Kyiv, and both Putin and Zelensky had agreed to a deal in principle. You ignore that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said Putin can’t be reasoned with and that, even if Ukraine is ready to sign with Russia, the US and UK are not. You only repeat official talking points, and ignore every inconvenient fact. d) You say that Putin started this war to restore the Soviet union, something he always wanted to do. Another talking point that is even beyond what the White House says, because it tries to at least not veer into unsupported conspiracy. It is more akin to the extreme partisan bias that democrats or republicans have. e) You believe Russia is 100% responsible, and must be 100% defeated becauss it cannot be trusted. Another official talking point that is far from reality. Some blame Putin, some blame all Russians. f) You say that NATO is purely defensive. Another talking point. Purely and uttely defensive. Very pure. Yugoslavia and Libya are whataboutism. How convenient. Same words used (“whataboutism”, “freedom”, “democracy”) almost in concert, to shut down any critical thinking or conversation that challenges the official claims, which are repeated VERBATIM (“purely defensive”, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “weapons of mass destruction”, “hacked the election”, etc.) g) You say Russia has NO (not even a small one) legitimate reasons to be afraid of NATO in any way, shape or form. NATO is just people defending themselves against Russia, an aggressor country. Their red lines are illegitimate, and rejected out of hand. Every country (except US neighbors) has the right to make its own alliances and we will make sure of that. h) You say we are doing this to free Ukraine from the clutches of an authoritarian regime. We spread democracy and freedom vs tyrants and dictators around the world. And vs China too. All happen to spectacularly match or even EXCEED white house talking points! And then you turn around and call me a Vatnik for saying “no to war”. So then explain: 1) First of all, I call it a war. That already violates the “official” propaganda 2) Second people who said NO TO WAR in Russia publicly got arrested for this. How can this be a vatnik position if the Russian government is arresting people for it? 3) Third, I condemned Russia for arming rebels in Donbas and contributing to escalating the war since 2014. This may not be anti-Russian enough for you, but it is certainly not “uncritically accepting US propaganda”. YOU accept that CIA didnt do anything to escalate this proxy war! I don’t do anything of the sort. 4) I also pointed out that Russia did far worse destruction in Grozny and Aleppo and Homs. You claim that is also a vatnik. I guess we need to redefine that term too, to be basically meaningless. In short - you are a shill for US white house official positions, and actually exceed them in your jingoism. I on the other hand am able to go against Russian official positions, but the more balanced assessment I arrive at is still not 100% anti-Russian so it seems to you I am a vatnik. I hope that you have actually understood my points and are able to address them. But there is a good chance you’ll ignore ALL inconvenient points like you did last time. It is the only way to maintain your cognitive dissonance and keep digging your heels in. I mean, you even ignored the quotes from YOUR OWN ARTICLE (which I obviously read - to find them) that show Russia was refusing to commit troops and actually pushed the separatists to make a deal with Kyiv. But what you did is simply… wait for it … re-paste what you wrote before my response! Ignoring everything I said completely! Amazing technique, no one can see thru such slick argumentstion haha The floor is yours buddy.

_kbh_ 3y ago
I’ll respond to this, once you answer this question and answer it directly without taking about America for paragraphs. Do you think that the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraines internationally recognised borders, this includes Crimea. We are going to include all of the LPR and DPR fighters in that statement, but I’ll consider them surrendering the same thing.
- EGreg 3y ago
  Oh will you? Will you response be like the others — ignoring most of what I said — or will you address each point I made? Do I think the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, includint Crimea? I will answer it in depth. 1) First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Do you think that Ukraine should have allowed fresh water to flow to Crimea, and stopped bombing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk, give the degree of autonomy to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that they are demanding, allow them to teach Russian, etc.? 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements, and things would have gotten back to normal. According to your own article it declined to absorb Luhansk and Donetsk and pushed them to work things out with Kyiv and remain inside Ukraine. That shocked Strelkov and he committed himself to supporting the rebels and fighting the far-right nationalist battallions. 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. But I won’t ask you the corresponding questions about whether you think USA should stay out of other countries’ business 3000 miles away, dozens of countries around the world, because you asked me not to. After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. 4) Regarding Crimea, I am aware that in 1954 it was gifted from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR without asking the people. In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. They were ignored. Then 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, but multiple times since then Crimea demanded autonomy and Kyiv signed concession agreements, which it broke repeatedly to assert its domininion over Crimea, force changes to its constitution etc. So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Do I think the will of the people on the ground should be respected? Yes, and countries including Ukraine should grant such populations a degree of autonomy, to the point where membership in this or that country is a minor detail (as it was in 1954 when Crimea changed hands). 5) In the current world, I think the only vehicle by which nationalistic fervor can be tempered is being part of the same federation (eg the Republic of California is part of the USA) and breaking those ties can lead to more instability and violence. In an ideal world, countries would be unbundled into multiple services (police, roads etc) with agencies competing for the business of a city, neighborhood etc. peacefully competing on how well they serve the people. Rather than treating people as livestock to own that graze on your land, which is how you currently think of Crimeans or Luhansk people etc. You think of countries as the primary actors, and anthropomorphosize them, while people are m mostly fodder, or stand-ins for monolithic “political aspirations”. This is exactly what I encounter when I speak to other statists, including people who want to build a Palestinian state, or people who believe China owns this or that territory forever. I think the current system of “country borders and ownership” is an unfortunate tinderbox because demographics change and there should be better, more libertarian systems. We can see the tinderbox firsthand eg in Yugoslavia or in nearly all the countries set up by the Sykes-Picot agreement. Now answer my previous comment point by point as you promised to do.

by EGreg 3y ago

_kbh_ 3y ago

I’ll respond to this, once you answer this question and answer it directly without taking about America for paragraphs. Do you think that the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraines internationally recognised borders, this includes Crimea. We are going to include all of the LPR and DPR fighters in that statement, but I’ll consider them surrendering the same thing.

EGreg 3y ago
Oh will you? Will you response be like the others — ignoring most of what I said — or will you address each point I made? Do I think the Russian army should withdraw from Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders, includint Crimea? I will answer it in depth. 1) First, the most one-dimensional and simplistic answer. With regard to everything except Crimea: yes of course, and the internationally recognized Minsk II agreements should have been implemented. Do you think that Ukraine should have allowed fresh water to flow to Crimea, and stopped bombing the people of Luhansk and Donetsk, give the degree of autonomy to the people of Donetsk and Luhansk that they are demanding, allow them to teach Russian, etc.? 2) If everyone kept their word, Russia would have never entered because Ukraine would have either put down the rebellion, and things would have gotten back to normal — or implemented the Minsk II agreements, and things would have gotten back to normal. According to your own article it declined to absorb Luhansk and Donetsk and pushed them to work things out with Kyiv and remain inside Ukraine. That shocked Strelkov and he committed himself to supporting the rebels and fighting the far-right nationalist battallions. 3) In a perfect world, Russia would have never entered, because USA would have never fomented a revolution, sponsored far-right extremist groups, installed a puppet regime in Ukraine, and destabilized the country with revolutionaries and counter-revolutionaries forming opposing brigades. But I won’t ask you the corresponding questions about whether you think USA should stay out of other countries’ business 3000 miles away, dozens of countries around the world, because you asked me not to. After all, that would be “whataboutism” and we are only after fantasy scenarios here, where one side (Russia) does all the accomodating to keep peace while the other side (USA) keeps expanding unchecked forever. 4) Regarding Crimea, I am aware that in 1954 it was gifted from Russian SSR to Ukrainian SSR without asking the people. In 1991 the people on the ground voted overwhelmingly (close to 100%) to break free of Ukraine and be independent. They were ignored. Then 54% voted to be part of Ukraine, but multiple times since then Crimea demanded autonomy and Kyiv signed concession agreements, which it broke repeatedly to assert its domininion over Crimea, force changes to its constitution etc. So it is unsurprising that they voted to be independent again in the 2014 referendum and I believe that, had OSCE or any others overseen it, the result would have been the same. Do I think the will of the people on the ground should be respected? Yes, and countries including Ukraine should grant such populations a degree of autonomy, to the point where membership in this or that country is a minor detail (as it was in 1954 when Crimea changed hands). 5) In the current world, I think the only vehicle by which nationalistic fervor can be tempered is being part of the same federation (eg the Republic of California is part of the USA) and breaking those ties can lead to more instability and violence. In an ideal world, countries would be unbundled into multiple services (police, roads etc) with agencies competing for the business of a city, neighborhood etc. peacefully competing on how well they serve the people. Rather than treating people as livestock to own that graze on your land, which is how you currently think of Crimeans or Luhansk people etc. You think of countries as the primary actors, and anthropomorphosize them, while people are m mostly fodder, or stand-ins for monolithic “political aspirations”. This is exactly what I encounter when I speak to other statists, including people who want to build a Palestinian state, or people who believe China owns this or that territory forever. I think the current system of “country borders and ownership” is an unfortunate tinderbox because demographics change and there should be better, more libertarian systems. We can see the tinderbox firsthand eg in Yugoslavia or in nearly all the countries set up by the Sykes-Picot agreement. Now answer my previous comment point by point as you promised to do.