Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[BashiChuni]

no we moved NATO to the border of russia

you wouldn't like it if china violated the monroe doctrine and incorporated mexico into a chinese military alliance. same thing.

[Lord Ratner]

48 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

so many of you guys have zero critical thinking and just parrot what the media tells you to say/think. nato has provoked russia since the early 90s with expansion. it's a fact. you can say its russian talking points as many times as you want....still doesn't make it not true.

You've been repeating the same thing over and over for months, regardless of the varied and diverse discussions happening here. And you managed to do it in a way that comes off is just, I don't know, juvenile? Impetuous? I'm not exactly sure, but it doesn't feel like another adult in the room engaged in the conversation.

 

Yes, the expansion of NATO has been provoking, but pretending like Russia has been some innocent and compliant neighbor throughout all of this is laughable. There is a reason the bordering nations have wanted to join NATO in the years following the collapse of the USSR.

 

But I'm not sure anybody needs a lecture on critical thinking from someone with the rhetorical complexity of a speak-and-say.

Edited July 9, 2023 by Lord Ratner

[BashiChuni]

not saying they're innocent...simply saying we aren't either. and sending boris johnson to kill a peace deal was a nice touch

diverse discussion? most of it is PUTIN BAD!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 9, 2023 by BashiChuni

[Stoker]

If NATO expansion is a legitimate reason for Russia to invade sovereign nations (it isn't), why did they invade one of the countries that explicitly wasn't on a path to NATO membership?

Russia saying they don't want NATO to expand, and then invading only countries that haven't joined NATO, is incoherent and self-defeating. Putin is the greatest NATO salesman since Khrushchev. 

[ViperMan]

16 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

we need to examine HOW WE GOT HERE

putin didn't just decide to "steamroll Ukraine"

the US and NATO have provoked Russia for decades...we got here because the neocons and war hawks in government WANTED this war

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

so many of you guys have zero critical thinking and just parrot what the media tells you to say/think. nato has provoked russia since the early 90s with expansion. it's a fact. you can say its russian talking points as many times as you want....still doesn't make it not true.

3 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

no we moved NATO to the border of russia

you wouldn't like it if china violated the monroe doctrine and incorporated mexico into a chinese military alliance. same thing.

@BashiChuni, it's like you don't listen dude. That, or you're just fact-immune. Your argument rests on this presupposition that "buh we provoked Putin". As laid out for you back in September, this is not the case. But, to humor this argument, even if it was hypothetically true, that does not justify Putin invading an independent third-party nation. Your argument is without merit. How you can literally not see how he has used this meme as a pretext for something he wanted to do anyway is baffling. I have to assume you are being intentionally dense in order to frustrate other posters on this board.

"NATO expansion became an excuse post facto..." for Russian militarism and autocracy.

"The ability of countries to determine their own foreign policy and their alliances, is written into the UN Charter...written into the 1975 Helsinki act...written into the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe...written into the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act...Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki final act...signed the NATO-Russia founding act that places no limits on NATO expansion..." etc, etc.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

 

[SurelySerious]

so many of you guys have zero critical thinking and just parrot what the media tells you to say/think. nato has provoked russia since the early 90s with expansion. it's a fact. you can say its russian talking points as many times as you want....still doesn't make it not true.

It’s “not critical thinking” to listen to what Putin says and read what he writes to justify his attempts to revive the Soviet empire? Yeah,that’s the same as parroting media. K bro, you’re doing a bang up job of thinking for yourself.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

@BashiChuni, it's like you don't listen dude. That, or you're just fact-immune. Your argument rests on this presupposition that "buh we provoked Putin". As laid out for you back in September, this is not the case. But, to humor this argument, even if it was hypothetically true, that does not justify Putin invading an independent third-party nation. Your argument is without merit. How you can literally not see how he has used this meme as a pretext for something he wanted to do anyway is baffling. I have to assume you are being intentionally dense in order to frustrate other posters on this board.

"NATO expansion became an excuse post facto..." for Russian militarism and autocracy.

"The ability of countries to determine their own foreign policy and their alliances, is written into the UN Charter...written into the 1975 Helsinki act...written into the 1990 charter of Paris for a new Europe...written into the 1997 NATO-Russia founding act...Russia's signature is on every one of those documents. Moscow signed the UN Charter, it signed the Helsinki final act...signed the NATO-Russia founding act that places no limits on NATO expansion..." etc, etc.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Russia's signature is on every one of those documents.

Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

 

 

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, ViperMan said:

@BashiChuni

 

Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

 

ahhhhhh there it is! the CLASSIC drone narrative! "IF YOU DON'T GET ONBOARD WITH THE GOVERNMENT YOU'RE SPOUTING ENEMY PROPAGANDA!"

listen to yourself my man...it's pathetic. do you swallow up everything the legacy media and the government tells you?

[raimius]

9 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

ahhhhhh there it is! the CLASSIC drone narrative! "IF YOU DON'T GET ONBOARD WITH THE GOVERNMENT YOU'RE SPOUTING ENEMY PROPAGANDA!"

listen to yourself my man...it's pathetic. do you swallow up everything the legacy media and the government tells you?

So, do you think Russia thought NATO was going to invade, if they didn't defeat all the (Jewish-led) "Nazis" in Ukraine with their own swastika-tatooed hired guns?

 

[DirkDiggler]

On 7/9/2023 at 12:13 PM, ViperMan said:

 

Get on board dude. You spouting Russian propaganda is not a good look for someone who represents themselves as a military officer.

 

Pretty sure that sad **** isn't an active duty military officer (at least not anymore), which is probably the best case scenario for everybody involved.

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, BashiChuni said:

ahhhhhh there it is! the CLASSIC drone narrative! "IF YOU DON'T GET ONBOARD WITH THE GOVERNMENT YOU'RE SPOUTING ENEMY PROPAGANDA!"

listen to yourself my man...it's pathetic. do you swallow up everything the legacy media and the government tells you?

No dude. See my opinions on the Iraq war, COVID, affirmative action, abortion rights, etc.

I am pointing out that you have a position that is inconsistent with reality. That primary fact being your argument rests upon something even Russia does not hold to be true: namely that they agreed there would be no limits to NATO expansion and have publicly and formally ratified such notions. Your argument rests upon a counterfactual that is not true. If you want to spout off with something that contravenes that which is obviously true for anyone who does even the most basic homework, then you need to articulate why for the crowd. All you've done so far is shout at clouds.

Feel free to point at me and say that I'm "getting on board with the government" - odd since our government's current form (form of: Joe Biden's government) is one I almost wholly disagree with, top to bottom - to any casual observer though, it is you who is not engaging with the facts.

The Big Lebowski GIF is funny and cute (and sometimes appropriate) but in this context it actually does constitute failure to engage with the argument - which is frankly a very "liberal" thing to do. So I'll leave you with this: You need to answer why Russia would agree that there would be no limits to NATO's expansion and also agree with the proposition that all nations should be free to form whatever alliances they want, while simultaneously explaining why NATO expansion constitutes provocation. I'll leave that as homework. Seems challenging to me, but that's the corner you've painted yourself into.

[gearhog]

14 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's not so much that I think we can't do something if we don't do the other things, it's more to my overall financial point that those other things indicate the fruitlessness of fiscal responsibility on a governmental level. There is a finite amount of money between now and financial Armageddon. They will spend every dime if you let them on nonsense, or you can divert some to better causes. But it will be spent. 

There was a ton of fraud. A metric shit ton. And where it wasn't fraud, such as my stimulus check, it was waste. It's a separate issue, but it demonstrates, again, my overall point that being fiscally responsible with Ukraine spending at the cost of inaction (further discussed below) is illogical, because fiscal responsibility is no longer a goal of the system. It's like following a rule from an older version of the 11-202. No one is telling you to do it anymore, and it's slowing you down, so why are you doing it?

You have two assumptions here I disagree with.

First, financial doom is guaranteed. It is possible to be fiscally responsible in the US. There was a recent article regarding Indiana vs. Illinois. Budget surplus vs incredible budget deficits. So you can have a government that is not spending money they don't have.If "they" are going to spend us into oblivion, it is our duty to use democracy against them. That may sound naive, but we've strayed a long way from the founding principles of the country, and I think it's worth the effort to try and right the ship instead of abandon it.

Second, that Russia was ever really a threat that necessitated us to not only exacerbate our financial problems, but also increase the probability of a nuclear exchange. All of this "our intentions are noble and pure and they're pure evil" is just a page out of the propaganda playbook that gets rehashed over and over and over again. "They got yellow cake! They're using chemical and biological weapons! They're using torture!" They can't operate a few miles from their own border, they certainly wouldn't be leaping across Europe. The claim that the cost of our inaction would have been higher than the cost of what we're doing now doesn't pass the smell test.

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth." It's all propaganda.

15 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Don't get caught up in the analogy. Suffice it to say we are spending a lot less than if we had to do it ourselves.

one of the reasons I support the funding of Ukraine against Russia is specifically because I view it as a moral good. That doesn't mean you can run national policy off morality alone. I generally believe that if the act is immoral, you never do it as a nation, but if the act is moral, you now have the green light to weigh it against other interests. I do not believe that the political missteps of teasing Ukrainian involvement with NATO justifies this invasion. It is evil, in my eyes, and for as long as the Ukrainians wish to fight, and as long as we can afford it (already addressed), I want to support them.

This is another position that bothers me. Earlier it was claimed that Russia was our geopolitical adversary and it is ultimately in OUR best interest that they are weakened/defeated. Why are we not also fighting them ourselves? How can it be claimed that we're doing moral good by sending tens of thousands of Ukrainians to the meat grinder so that we may benefit from it? "It's a bargain! Best money we've ever spent!" If the Ukrainians wish to fight, why do we only hear from Zalensky and rarely from average Ukrainians? Many Ukrainians are being forcibly conscripted to fight. Off the street. Thrown into a van. It's a tough sell to say that we have the moral high ground when all we lose is money while they lose their lives. If Russia is our enemy and we as a nation determine that Russia is actually threatening our precious bodily fluids, then let's declare war and go fuckin fight 'em. Paying someone else to do is kinda shameful.

The word "evil" gets tossed around a lot, but is rarely defined outside of some cartoonish image of bond villian. I recently heard someone say that "Evil is someone trying to control someone else in a way that is not their best interest." Sure, Putin probably has evil intentions, but so do the other players. It's as if we're watching bunch of mob families go to war while we try to decide which one to pay protection fees to.

16 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

It shouldn't work in your household. It shouldn't work nationally, and eventually won't, but your ability to load up on massive debt will expire in a matter of months/years, whereas the country's ability is measured in decades. It's not logical, it's catastrophic, but it's happening anyways.

Yes, in a way. Except I don't want to actively speed it up directly, I am simply ok with getting there sooner if it means spending some of the fake money on moral or useful endeavors. However, I do believe we are better off getting to the collapse sooner. 

In the aftermath everyone will be jockeying for control, as they always do. A weaker Russia and a weaker China gives us a better shot of coming out on top. But more broadly:

This whole thing is game theory, or the prisoners dilemma. Except I can tell you already what the other prisoner is going to do: they are going to spend us into oblivion. So your financial discipline is only going to ensure you lose. By the time you are proven right, you're long gone. I truly believe there is a 0% chance of returning to financial sustainability without a devastating financial catastrophe. Look at the response to 2008... we solved a debt bubble with a newer, much bigger debt bubble. And now the largest voting demographic is completely reliant on home values, stock prices, and government spending to fund their unearned retirements. You think they are going to vote that away for our sake?

But the longer we take to get there, the weaker we will be. We will lose the musculature of innovation, as Europe has. Our military will continue to degrade, as Europe's has. Our resource infrastructure will wither away, as Europe's has. Seeing the theme? We can look across the ocean to see our future, and I don't like it. Better to hit the hard times now while we still have some hard men and women to lead us from the (metaphorical) rubble. 

But if it takes another 50 years I fear we will be as weak and helpless as the Europeans. That'll give China an advantage, especially when they conveniently let a few hundred million retirees die to rebalance their lost-cause demographics, something we would never do, and suddenly they have a strong foundation to build an empire on. 

I don't think this is true. It's not going to take decades for this to play out. Go check out some of the charts at the FRED website. Lots of indicators are exponential, in a bad way. I think we do have a chance to "flatten the curve", but it's as if our leadership has decided that it's better to loot what's left of the economy before it crashes down than try and save it. You keep saying you'd rather go through the hard times now than later. If it's as bad as you say, there is no later. What comes after will not resemble our current way of life in the slightest. It'll be a fiery hellscape for as long as we and our children live. If the US goes down, so goes the world. Your chief concern won't be geopolitical rivals on the other side of the planet, it'll be fighting a woke transexual feudal warlord from District 9 over a bag of rice. 😄

Our Nation and the world has problems, but online negativity notwithstanding, my first hand experience with our way of life is still pretty fkng decent. I still want to preserve it even if it may seem futile. There are better ways to outcompete China and Russia than risking thermonuclear war so some politicians and elites can line their pockets.

Cheers.

[gearhog]

@Best-22 Why do you only downvote posts, yet never contribute to the discussion? No one cares about your downvotes, least of all me. This isn't Reddit. Likes and dislikes mean nothing.

If you have an opinion on these issues, posting is super easy. I'm more than happy to hear you out and discuss your concerns. But if you're going to take pot shots with your BB gun from a distance instead of actually engaging with a single original though, it really makes you look like a giant bonus hole.

Edit: I'll give @nsplayer and @Prozac a little credit here, at least they have (had) the courage to put an unpopular opinion out there. You never did.

Weak.

Edited July 10, 2023 by gearhog

[BashiChuni]

 

 

wise words

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

no we moved NATO to the border of russia

you wouldn't like it if china violated the monroe doctrine and incorporated mexico into a chinese military alliance. same thing.

Who is "we"?

Countries on Russia's border felt threatened enough by Russia to ask if they could join NATO. We didn't force anyone to join. We didn't expand NATO by conquering territory and pushing out the local citizens. Democratic countries voluntarily decided to join. 

[pawnman]

5 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Pretty sure that sad cunt isn't an active duty military officer (at least not anymore), which is probably the best case scenario for everybody involved.

I sure hope not. That's gonna be a really interesting security investigation. 

[BashiChuni]

3 hours ago, gearhog said:

@Best-22 Why do you only downvote posts, yet never contribute to the discussion? No one cares about your downvotes, least of all me. This isn't Reddit. Likes and dislikes mean nothing.

If you have an opinion on these issues, posting is super easy. I'm more than happy to hear you out and discuss your concerns. But if you're going to take pot shots with your BB gun from a distance instead of actually engaging with a single original though, it really makes you look like a giant bonus hole.

Edit: I'll give @nsplayer and @Prozac a little credit here, at least they have (had) the courage to put an unpopular opinion out there. You never did.

Weak.

He almost exclusively neg reps me and never responds. It’s actually funny to watch

[BashiChuni]

6 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Pretty sure that sad cunt isn't an active duty military officer (at least not anymore), which is probably the best case scenario for everybody involved.

Wrong. Mods are we allowing this type of flaming on this site now?

Edited July 10, 2023 by BashiChuni

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

wise words

You never got in a fist fight as a kid did you.

[pawnman]

6 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Wrong. Mods are we allowing this type of flaming on this site now?

You need to fill out one of these if you have a complaint.

[BashiChuni]

On 7/10/2023 at 4:29 AM, pawnman said:

You need to fill out one of these if you have a complaint.

calling another poster on the site a cunt seems over the line no? doesn't hurt my feelings.

if wanting peace makes oneself a cunt then so be it

love seeing the keyboard tough guys

[BashiChuni]

[BashiChuni]

On 7/9/2023 at 10:34 PM, ViperMan said:

You never got in a fist fight as a kid did you.

Are you calling JFK a pussy?

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

Are you calling JFK a pussy?

@BashiChuni, your previous two posts have been attempts to change the subject. i.e. they are tacit admissions that you've lost the argument.

Can you explain for the crowd why Russia would agree to all those treaties and agreements that placed no limit on NATO's expansion and why you argue that in fact it is, provocative, Russia didn't know what they were signing up for at the time, or something to that effect?

Or are you just going to continue to rage white?

[pawnman]

10 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

calling another poster on the site a cunt seems over the line no? doesn't hurt my feelings.

if wanting peace makes oneself a cunt then so be it

love seeing the keyboard tough guys

If you say so, Neville Chamberlain.