3 ms·

You’re the one who’s been tediously nitpicking irrelevant points and attacking imaginary strawmen. For instance I never actually said that the Soviets supported

You’re the one who’s been tediously nitpicking irrelevant points and attacking imaginary strawmen. For instance I never actually said that the Soviets supported antinuclear movements in the West by which, in the context of the Cold War, I obviously mean “the countries aligned with the United States and against the Soviet Union”, a set of countries that Finland was not, in fact, part of. It wouldn’t particularly surprise me if the Soviets backed those movements, because they backed a lot of similar movements, but I don’t have any particular evidence about the antinuclear movement in particular. My point—which seems to be well-received since it’s up about 12 points—is that if the Soviets did, in fact, support these movements, it wouldn’t be inconsistent with their own use of nuclear power, or even their efforts to develop nuclear power in “non-aligned” countries in an attempt to curry political favor. Your attempts to claim otherwise are bizarre and incoherent, and none of your fact checks are factual or indeed even relevant to the topic at hand.

aguaviva 2y ago
When you said: The Western antinuclear movement had their own agency and motivations, but because they happened to align with Soviet interests Which "interests" were you referring to, other than the interest of discouraging nuclear power development in the West?
- philwelch 2y ago
  You're conveniently quoting me out of context. That comment continued: > they may have received material support from the Soviets. If they did.... It should be obvious that it would have served the interests of the Soviet Union if their geopolitical adversaries had less abundant energy and less practical expertise in nuclear technology. I make no claims about whether or not the Soviets attempted to advance these particular interests by interfering in the domestic politics of their adversaries, even though they did interfere in other ways to advance other interests.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    No, I quoted you properly + you chose not to answer my question, which in a way actually answers it. I think we can leave it at that.
    - philwelch 2y ago
      > you chose not to answer my question Your question was: > Which "interests" were you referring to, other than the interest of discouraging nuclear power development in the West? There is no “other than”. Discouraging nuclear power development in the West (by which in this context, I am reiterating because it was insufficiently clear earlier, I mean the countries aligned with the US and against the USSR during the Cold War) was the Soviet interest that would have been served by Soviet attempts to interfere in the domestic politics of Western countries (by which I mean “First World”, US-aligned countries, just so we are crystal clear on that point). And I expanded on that point, actually: > It should be obvious that it would have served the interests of the Soviet Union if their geopolitical adversaries had less abundant energy and less practical expertise in nuclear technology. Why would you expect some other Soviet interest to be served? Perhaps you were confused by my use of the superficially plural term “interests”? In that case, please forgive the imprecision of my language. As I’ve explained, the Soviet interest in curbing the use of nuclear power in Western countries (by which, let me remind you, I mean countries that were Soviet adversaries) was multifaceted, but in common usage, when someone speaks of a country’s or a party’s “interests”, they are not necessarily thinking of some countable number of distinct points of interest.

aguaviva 2y ago

When you said: The Western antinuclear movement had their own agency and motivations, but because they happened to align with Soviet interests Which "interests" were you referring to, other than the interest of discouraging nuclear power development in the West?

philwelch 2y ago
You're conveniently quoting me out of context. That comment continued: > they may have received material support from the Soviets. If they did.... It should be obvious that it would have served the interests of the Soviet Union if their geopolitical adversaries had less abundant energy and less practical expertise in nuclear technology. I make no claims about whether or not the Soviets attempted to advance these particular interests by interfering in the domestic politics of their adversaries, even though they did interfere in other ways to advance other interests.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  No, I quoted you properly + you chose not to answer my question, which in a way actually answers it. I think we can leave it at that.
  - philwelch 2y ago
    > you chose not to answer my question Your question was: > Which "interests" were you referring to, other than the interest of discouraging nuclear power development in the West? There is no “other than”. Discouraging nuclear power development in the West (by which in this context, I am reiterating because it was insufficiently clear earlier, I mean the countries aligned with the US and against the USSR during the Cold War) was the Soviet interest that would have been served by Soviet attempts to interfere in the domestic politics of Western countries (by which I mean “First World”, US-aligned countries, just so we are crystal clear on that point). And I expanded on that point, actually: > It should be obvious that it would have served the interests of the Soviet Union if their geopolitical adversaries had less abundant energy and less practical expertise in nuclear technology. Why would you expect some other Soviet interest to be served? Perhaps you were confused by my use of the superficially plural term “interests”? In that case, please forgive the imprecision of my language. As I’ve explained, the Soviet interest in curbing the use of nuclear power in Western countries (by which, let me remind you, I mean countries that were Soviet adversaries) was multifaceted, but in common usage, when someone speaks of a country’s or a party’s “interests”, they are not necessarily thinking of some countable number of distinct points of interest.