6 ms·

Seriously that channel? The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? Who also did a fluff piece on north Korea?

by 0dayz 2y ago

Cumpiler69 2y ago
>The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. >Who also did a fluff piece on north Korea? Someone didn't get the humor and sarcasm I guess.
- ttyprintk 2y ago
  An AI summary of that channel’s Ukraine video does fall into a narrative I’ve seen in the West: 1. Eastern states joined NATO for defense 2. This redirected Russian aggression to Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine 3. Thus, the invading forces must themselves be acting with circumspection about NATO This reasoning tends to prefer analysis rather than emphasize what invading armies do to civilians. We know what’s happening to civilians in each of those invasions. We do not know (and should not care) if each soldier has an opinion of NATO.
- gruez 2y ago
  >>The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? >I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. They stopped short of saying it explicitly, but it was strongly implied. The whole video basically lists out all of russia's motivation for the war, and then concludes with "now there's a war in europe [...] if there was only someone who have predicted it, someone with power to stop it" followed by a few sound bites/clips strongly alluding to Western defense officials. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
  - Cumpiler69 2y ago
    I love it when people go off the beaten path to prove that wrong opinions about one unrelated topic somehow must automatically disprove true facts about a completely different topic. It's the playbook of trolls. Whataboutism at it's finest.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >It's the playbook of trolls. ...you say as you unilaterally assert that you're correct without trying to refute any of my previous points (ie. that the video didn't blame the west explicitly but strongly implied it).
- 0dayz 2y ago
  >I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. They intentionally leaves out sources they claim to have, they cut crucial parts of video evidence (such as Joe Biden's statement, which changes the entire statement) There's tons more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0p9-kjKdfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0p9-kjKdfY >Someone didn't get the humor and sarcasm I guess. By that logic then I guess glazing Nazi Germany is fine because it's just sarcasm & joke bro.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    There's tons more You need to understand that not everyone shares your addiction to YT's dopamine-jerking content feeds. In any case, no one has time to dig through that video to find whatever "evidence" you think is buried there.
    - 0dayz 2y ago
      >You need to understand that not everyone shares your addiction to YT's dopamine-jerking content feeds. In any case, no one has time to dig through that video to find whatever "evidence" you think is buried there. I can't help it if you can't watch a video without feeling as if it's meant to be some "dopamine rush" for you, that's a you problem. It does not in any way shape or form discard it from being evidence. Especially when I specifically pointed out 2 issues with the boyboy video, which I assume you also haven't watched (or does boyboy somehow get a pass?) which then begs the question of why you're even replying.
      - aguaviva 2y ago
        It just seemed weird that you thought nothing of pointing to a 48 minute video about mostly unrelated topics, as if anyone would actually fish through all that to get to the nuggets of pertinent information that you're suggesting are buried in there somewhere.
coldtea 2y ago
>Seriously that channel? The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? Such crazy talk! Who would have ever thought that pushing a cold-war coalition eastwards towards an ex-superpower, including shoving it in its very borders, which it has long declared a "red line", would ever cause an invasion? It's not like everybody from real-politic scholars to the most experienced of foreign affairs like Kissinger explicitly said it was a bad idea, and that this will be the result!
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Who would have ever thought that pushing a cold-war coalition eastwards towards an ex-superpower, including shoving it in its very borders, which it has long declared a "red line" Except that's not what happened. In you know, actual, physical reality. It's just what the aggressor told you, in its propaganda.
  - throw1231210 2y ago
    I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders". That is not Russian propaganda. Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" comes from a leaked telegram from CIA director William Burns: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-question-surrounding-ukraines-nato-admission?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-ques...
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language. Which is the precise moment which qualifies what they said as propaganda. As to what you're saying: Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case. Ukraine's NATO membership application was formally rejected by NATO in 2008. This was very, very big news at the time, and Merkel still can't keep bragging about it.† Despite NATO's also offering some secondary, mollifying words about Ukraine "eventually" joining the alliance, there was no significant action taken to move that forward in the critical window of 2008-2014, when Russia invaded. In fact, in 2010 Ukraine's path to NATO took a very significant step backward, when its parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status. And as for the phrase "brightest of red lines": If you actually pull up the text of the cable, it specifically refers to the MAP, or Membership Application Plan, which was explicitly denied to Ukraine in 2008, as indicated above. Precisely due the level-headed advice of people like Burns et all. But Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022 anyway. Because its actual reasons were never rationally connected to NATO expansion in the first place. And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Why is that? † https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o
mu53 2y ago
Its not completely unfounded. The top US diplomat to the USSR for 20 years predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. This lines up with what Russia says. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border."
- aguaviva 2y ago
  Predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. Except Russia formally greenlighted at least partial NATO expansion (to CZ, HU, and PL) via a formal treaty it signed with NATO in 1997. Which right there, should suggest to you that there's something deeply broken with this narrative. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." NATO wasn't built "to destroy" Russia. You can say that NATO annoys Russia, or "is built to challenge Russia's influence outside its borders" if you want. But to say it was built, or at any point even remotely intended "to destroy Russia" is just dumb, emotional manipulation.
  - zakki 2y ago
    I guess "us" in this context also means USSR. So NATO destroyed USSR and now they want to destroy Russia by expanding their "territory" closer and closer to Russia.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      So NATO destroyed USSR Well, we can see this conversation is going at least. In any case there's evidently no meaningful relationship to the actual word "destroy" in play here. Seems they meant "irritates" or "offends".
      - mu53 2y ago
        I think geopolitics is signifcantly more complex than you make it out to be. If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. The signatories to the treaty in 1997 may not have understood how the Russian population at large would perceive NATO expansion. When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Destroying, irritating, and annoying are easy to understand between individuals, but in talking about nation states, what do these really mean? One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict.

Seriously that channel? The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? Who also did a fluff piece on north Korea?

by 0dayz 2y ago

Seriously that channel? The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? Who also did a fluff piece on north Korea?

Cumpiler69 2y ago

>The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. >Who also did a fluff piece on north Korea? Someone didn't get the humor and sarcasm I guess.

ttyprintk 2y ago
An AI summary of that channel’s Ukraine video does fall into a narrative I’ve seen in the West: 1. Eastern states joined NATO for defense 2. This redirected Russian aggression to Chechnya, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine 3. Thus, the invading forces must themselves be acting with circumspection about NATO This reasoning tends to prefer analysis rather than emphasize what invading armies do to civilians. We know what’s happening to civilians in each of those invasions. We do not know (and should not care) if each soldier has an opinion of NATO.
gruez 2y ago
>>The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? >I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. They stopped short of saying it explicitly, but it was strongly implied. The whole video basically lists out all of russia's motivation for the war, and then concludes with "now there's a war in europe [...] if there was only someone who have predicted it, someone with power to stop it" followed by a few sound bites/clips strongly alluding to Western defense officials. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LL4eNy4FCs8
- Cumpiler69 2y ago
  I love it when people go off the beaten path to prove that wrong opinions about one unrelated topic somehow must automatically disprove true facts about a completely different topic. It's the playbook of trolls. Whataboutism at it's finest.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It's the playbook of trolls. ...you say as you unilaterally assert that you're correct without trying to refute any of my previous points (ie. that the video didn't blame the west explicitly but strongly implied it).
0dayz 2y ago
>I don't remember them saying that. I do remember them showing US political and financial involvement in Ukraine. They intentionally leaves out sources they claim to have, they cut crucial parts of video evidence (such as Joe Biden's statement, which changes the entire statement) There's tons more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0p9-kjKdfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0p9-kjKdfY >Someone didn't get the humor and sarcasm I guess. By that logic then I guess glazing Nazi Germany is fine because it's just sarcasm & joke bro.
- aguaviva 2y ago
  There's tons more You need to understand that not everyone shares your addiction to YT's dopamine-jerking content feeds. In any case, no one has time to dig through that video to find whatever "evidence" you think is buried there.
  - 0dayz 2y ago
    >You need to understand that not everyone shares your addiction to YT's dopamine-jerking content feeds. In any case, no one has time to dig through that video to find whatever "evidence" you think is buried there. I can't help it if you can't watch a video without feeling as if it's meant to be some "dopamine rush" for you, that's a you problem. It does not in any way shape or form discard it from being evidence. Especially when I specifically pointed out 2 issues with the boyboy video, which I assume you also haven't watched (or does boyboy somehow get a pass?) which then begs the question of why you're even replying.
    - aguaviva 2y ago
      It just seemed weird that you thought nothing of pointing to a 48 minute video about mostly unrelated topics, as if anyone would actually fish through all that to get to the nuggets of pertinent information that you're suggesting are buried in there somewhere.

coldtea 2y ago

>Seriously that channel? The same channel who said it's nato and the west's fault that Russia is invading Ukraine? Such crazy talk! Who would have ever thought that pushing a cold-war coalition eastwards towards an ex-superpower, including shoving it in its very borders, which it has long declared a "red line", would ever cause an invasion? It's not like everybody from real-politic scholars to the most experienced of foreign affairs like Kissinger explicitly said it was a bad idea, and that this will be the result!

aguaviva 2y ago
Who would have ever thought that pushing a cold-war coalition eastwards towards an ex-superpower, including shoving it in its very borders, which it has long declared a "red line" Except that's not what happened. In you know, actual, physical reality. It's just what the aggressor told you, in its propaganda.
- throw1231210 2y ago
  I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders". That is not Russian propaganda. Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" comes from a leaked telegram from CIA director William Burns: https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-question-surrounding-ukraines-nato-admission?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/posts/2023/08/the-crucial-ques...
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    I think "in its very borders" was supposed to mean "to its very borders" And we could forgive them for that small particular exaggeration, if that was all it was. But they took extra special care to double down on the "pushing" part, and dial it up a notch, to "shoving [it] its borders", which is unmistakably an intentional use of emotionally manipulative language. Which is the precise moment which qualifies what they said as propaganda. As to what you're saying: Ukraine in NATO being "the brightest of red lines" Except there was no concrete "push" in Ukraine's case. Ukraine's NATO membership application was formally rejected by NATO in 2008. This was very, very big news at the time, and Merkel still can't keep bragging about it.† Despite NATO's also offering some secondary, mollifying words about Ukraine "eventually" joining the alliance, there was no significant action taken to move that forward in the critical window of 2008-2014, when Russia invaded. In fact, in 2010 Ukraine's path to NATO took a very significant step backward, when its parliament voted to abandon the goal of NATO membership and re-affirm Ukraine's neutral status. And as for the phrase "brightest of red lines": If you actually pull up the text of the cable, it specifically refers to the MAP, or Membership Application Plan, which was explicitly denied to Ukraine in 2008, as indicated above. Precisely due the level-headed advice of people like Burns et all. But Russia invaded in 2014 and 2022 anyway. Because its actual reasons were never rationally connected to NATO expansion in the first place. And yet - whatever sources you've been reading seem to have left you with the impression that Burns's "brightest of red lines" had in fact been crossed, and that this is what "caused" the invasion. Why is that? † https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3e8y1qly52o

mu53 2y ago

Its not completely unfounded. The top US diplomat to the USSR for 20 years predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. This lines up with what Russia says. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border."

aguaviva 2y ago
Predicted a conflict if the US expanded the NATO alliance further east after the USSR fell. Except Russia formally greenlighted at least partial NATO expansion (to CZ, HU, and PL) via a formal treaty it signed with NATO in 1997. Which right there, should suggest to you that there's something deeply broken with this narrative. "We do not want a military alliance that was built to destroy us expanding to our border." NATO wasn't built "to destroy" Russia. You can say that NATO annoys Russia, or "is built to challenge Russia's influence outside its borders" if you want. But to say it was built, or at any point even remotely intended "to destroy Russia" is just dumb, emotional manipulation.
- zakki 2y ago
  I guess "us" in this context also means USSR. So NATO destroyed USSR and now they want to destroy Russia by expanding their "territory" closer and closer to Russia.
  - aguaviva 2y ago
    So NATO destroyed USSR Well, we can see this conversation is going at least. In any case there's evidently no meaningful relationship to the actual word "destroy" in play here. Seems they meant "irritates" or "offends".
    - mu53 2y ago
      I think geopolitics is signifcantly more complex than you make it out to be. If you consider how specific you are about word choices over actions, you are repeating the western narrative verbatim. The signatories to the treaty in 1997 may not have understood how the Russian population at large would perceive NATO expansion. When it happened, the russian people responded differently than they did in a much more idealistic period. Destroying, irritating, and annoying are easy to understand between individuals, but in talking about nation states, what do these really mean? One nation state can annoy another into an economic collapse thus destroying it. Everything thing you say ignores what the Russians have been saying about NATO expansionism, and I think that is more key to understanding both sides of the issue. I only suggested that actions of NATO contributed to the "irritation" that drug Russia into conflict.