4 ms·

No political history of Ukraine is necessary to identify the conspirators behind the war, as you put it. The decision to invade was made solely in Moscow. It ca

No political history of Ukraine is necessary to identify the conspirators behind the war, as you put it. The decision to invade was made solely in Moscow. It cannot have been otherwise.

pphysch 3y ago
It is concerning that this sort of blatant anti-intellectualism is popular and accepted nowadays. Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/TAYTBiVJt4Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/TAYTBiVJt4Y?feature=shared
- kemotep 3y ago
  So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own? Why does only Russia or the United States have a say and not the Ukrainian people about who they want to be allied with? In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    > So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own? Before the war, US media agreed Ukraine was one of if not the most corrupt country in Europe. I mean, just look at what both Trump and the Bidens got away with. There is also an enormous propaganda apparatus operating on Ukrainian minds. Look how Zelensky got essentially elected by a fictional TV show produced by a notorious oligarch. So yes, it is correct to question how much genuine "Ukrainian" political will exists in relation to the whims of powerful oligarchs and foreign powers (US, Russia, EU). You really want me to believe that it is the Ukrainian national will to be slaughtered to prevent the corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Kiev being replaced by a corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Moscow? And that it is purely a coincidence that faraway Washington+London are extremely enthusiastic about this outcome? > In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary. He explicitly invited the audience to provide this "evidence". I invite you to do the same.
    - kemotep 3y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus... And then there is the actual annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts in 2022. If annexation was not his goal, why did he, why these specific ones that create a land bridge for Crimea, and why was the Russian constitution updated to include these territories? I will not deny any allegations of Ukrainian corruption, that is an issue they will have to work through. Even the United States is not innocent when it comes to political graft. But one is a country that is defending itself from an invading force and the other side is invading. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry here. Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. That Ukraine doesn’t have any actual agency. I’m claiming Russia is invading because Ukraine wants to exercise their own sovereignty and you are agreeing with Russia that Ukraine does not and is just a puppet. Realists need to explain why Ukraine, and only Ukraine, in this situation is unable to have agency yet London, Washington, and Moscow are the only ones capable of having agency.
      - pphysch 3y ago
        I encourage you to actually engage with the material you are wielding as "evidence" and the material you are responding to. From the conclusion of Putin's speech: > Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us. We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous. I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. This is supposed to be evidence that Putin's goal was to conquer all of Ukraine? I will charitably assume you already know what "partnership" means in IR jargon. Where is your evidence? Regarding your other questions, Mearsheimer addresses them in his talk, which you apparently haven't listened to. There is a lot of historical context you aren't aware of. > Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. This is your own problem. If Putin says the sky is blue, is the sky therefore not blue? This is anti-intellectualism par excellence. I am not saying these things because Putin may agree with them, but because they are based in evidence and common sense. Know the difference!
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: > https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared > International - Path to Peace in Ukraine , Jeffrey Sachs [239] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs > In 2022, he appeared twice on one of Russia government-funded top-rated shows, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory,[73] for which he was criticised by the Wall Street Journal.[74] I am not sure id trust the opinion of a person who gets platformed by literal Russian propaganda on their opinion on Ukraine.
  - pphysch 3y ago
    Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine. It’s not “anti-intellectualism” to think that someone who went on the “we should nuke Ukraine show” to talk about how Ukraine should surrender, perhaps doesn’t have the most unbiased opinion about Ukraine. > I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets? I don’t think they’re comparable really, the show that Jeffery Sachs gladly appeared on has content that is incredibly extreme and feels something more akin to propaganda then any tv I can think of in the west.
    - labster 3y ago
      > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I have never seen an internet poster so clearly and succinctly describe the problems with their own arguments. Congrats!

No political history of Ukraine is necessary to identify the conspirators behind the war, as you put it. The decision to invade was made solely in Moscow. It cannot have been otherwise.

pphysch 3y ago

It is concerning that this sort of blatant anti-intellectualism is popular and accepted nowadays. Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://youtu.be/TAYTBiVJt4Y?feature=shared https://youtu.be/TAYTBiVJt4Y?feature=shared

kemotep 3y ago
So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own? Why does only Russia or the United States have a say and not the Ukrainian people about who they want to be allied with? In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary.
- pphysch 3y ago
  > So the problem with realism is why does Ukraine not have any agency of their own? Before the war, US media agreed Ukraine was one of if not the most corrupt country in Europe. I mean, just look at what both Trump and the Bidens got away with. There is also an enormous propaganda apparatus operating on Ukrainian minds. Look how Zelensky got essentially elected by a fictional TV show produced by a notorious oligarch. So yes, it is correct to question how much genuine "Ukrainian" political will exists in relation to the whims of powerful oligarchs and foreign powers (US, Russia, EU). You really want me to believe that it is the Ukrainian national will to be slaughtered to prevent the corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Kiev being replaced by a corrupt Russian-speaking guy in Moscow? And that it is purely a coincidence that faraway Washington+London are extremely enthusiastic about this outcome? > In my opinion it is John Mearshiemer is misinformed. One thing he gets wrong is that he says Putin did not say anything about wanting to conquer Ukraine despite all evidence to the contrary. He explicitly invited the audience to provide this "evidence". I invite you to do the same.
  - kemotep 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Rus... And then there is the actual annexation of Crimea in 2014 and Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk Oblasts in 2022. If annexation was not his goal, why did he, why these specific ones that create a land bridge for Crimea, and why was the Russian constitution updated to include these territories? I will not deny any allegations of Ukrainian corruption, that is an issue they will have to work through. Even the United States is not innocent when it comes to political graft. But one is a country that is defending itself from an invading force and the other side is invading. It doesn’t get any more cut and dry here. Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. That Ukraine doesn’t have any actual agency. I’m claiming Russia is invading because Ukraine wants to exercise their own sovereignty and you are agreeing with Russia that Ukraine does not and is just a puppet. Realists need to explain why Ukraine, and only Ukraine, in this situation is unable to have agency yet London, Washington, and Moscow are the only ones capable of having agency.
    - pphysch 3y ago
      I encourage you to actually engage with the material you are wielding as "evidence" and the material you are responding to. From the conclusion of Putin's speech: > Russia is open to dialogue with Ukraine and ready to discuss the most complex issues. But it is important for us to understand that our partner is defending its national interests but not serving someone else's, and is not a tool in someone else's hands to fight against us. We respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians' desire to see their country free, safe and prosperous. I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia. This is supposed to be evidence that Putin's goal was to conquer all of Ukraine? I will charitably assume you already know what "partnership" means in IR jargon. Where is your evidence? Regarding your other questions, Mearsheimer addresses them in his talk, which you apparently haven't listened to. There is a lot of historical context you aren't aware of. > Your other arguments are literally Russian talking points to justify the invasion so I can hardly accept them in good faith. This is your own problem. If Putin says the sky is blue, is the sky therefore not blue? This is anti-intellectualism par excellence. I am not saying these things because Putin may agree with them, but because they are based in evidence and common sense. Know the difference!
_kbh_ 3y ago
> Here are a couple of insightful talks by esteemed American academics that shed some light on this dark period: > https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?feature=shared > International - Path to Peace in Ukraine , Jeffrey Sachs [239] > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Sachs > In 2022, he appeared twice on one of Russia government-funded top-rated shows, hosted by Vladimir Solovyov, to call for Ukraine to negotiate and step away from its "maximalist demands" of removing Russia from Ukrainian territory,[73] for which he was criticised by the Wall Street Journal.[74] I am not sure id trust the opinion of a person who gets platformed by literal Russian propaganda on their opinion on Ukraine.
- pphysch 3y ago
  Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets?
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. The fact that Jeffery Sachs even appeared on the show 100% colours his view on Ukraine. It’s not “anti-intellectualism” to think that someone who went on the “we should nuke Ukraine show” to talk about how Ukraine should surrender, perhaps doesn’t have the most unbiased opinion about Ukraine. > I'm curious, do you apply this same standard to those who are platformed by American/Ukrainian-government funded propaganda outlets? I don’t think they’re comparable really, the show that Jeffery Sachs gladly appeared on has content that is incredibly extreme and feels something more akin to propaganda then any tv I can think of in the west.
  - labster 3y ago
    > Ad hominem via loose guilt-by-association, the lowest form of "argument" and further evidence of the plague of anti-intellectualism. I have never seen an internet poster so clearly and succinctly describe the problems with their own arguments. Congrats!