Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

Watch how easy it is for me to completely invalidate your argument:

1864: On election day, Lincoln prevailed handily, winning 212 of 233 total electoral votes. Contributing to his victory were the predominantly Republican votes of Union soldiers, many of whom had been allowed to cast ballots in the field or else had been furloughed to vote in their home districts.

https://www.britannica.com/event/United-States-presidential-election-of-1864

1944: During World War II, more than 16 million Americans served in uniform. Approximately 11.5 million men and women served overseas, and the remainder often served thousands of miles away from their homes even when stationed within the United States. To ensure that these service members continued to be represented in their government, Congress passed bills in 1942 and 1944 intended to guarantee that American soldiers could vote in wartime elections for federal offices. Although the bills fell short of their ambitious goal, the 1944 bill permitted millions of soldiers to cast absentee ballots in the federal election that year.

https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/soldier-voting-act-1942-absentee-ballots

Yeah. Gosh. A Civil war example. Digging deep.

And whoa, a WW2 example wherein 0.7% of the serving soldiers were able to vote. That's 7/10 ths of 1 percent. That's a small number because you seem confused.

Nice examples. You added logs to my fire, not yours. Appreciate it.

29 minutes ago, gearhog said:

So you are saying the election was invalid and/or shouldn't have been held? Should those 28K not have been allowed to vote? What's your point here? Are you the world's first WWII election denier? 😀

An election was held during "true, wartime conditions". That's what a real democracy does. And it's not impossible.

That's clearly not what he was saying. And you're obviously being intentionally obtuse and provocative. Anyway, I'm done with this part of the argument.

[gearhog]

3 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Yeah. Gosh. A Civil war example. Digging deep.

And whoa, a WW2 example wherein 0.7% of the serving soldiers were able to vote. That's 7/10 ths of 1 percent. That's a small number because you seem confused.

Nice examples. You added logs to my fire, not yours. Appreciate it.

That's clearly not what he was saying. And you're obviously being intentionally obtuse and provocative. Anyway, I'm done with this part of the argument.

Our nation held democratic elections during some of the most extreme wartime conditions in history, when you said it couldn't/shouldn't be done. And, you're willing to diminish their importance because they don't align with your on position on a conflict halfway around the globe that you're not fighting. An election isn't just about deployed servicemembers voting. There were approx 135,000,000 citizens at home. The US decided it was consistent with our democratic ideals to allow it's citizens to vote for the direction they wanted their nation to take during a conflict we were directly involved in. It's no wonder you're done with the argument because it just doesn't pass the logic test. Abandoning a bad take is a good move and I commend you for it.

You should considering abandoning the entire issue. I don't pick battles that I'm not going to win. It's clear where this is headed and you're just going to keep stamping your feet as reality continues to depart from your fantasy? Why? It's like arguing the Cowboys should have won the Superbowl every year. Uh.. ok? Talk about it all you like. It just ain't happening.

I can see reality is aligning with my desire for the money I earned to no longer fund a vicious war where both sides are dying at incredibly high rates. As you can tell, I'm immensely satisfied that seems to be what is occurring. You can spend the next 20 pages that I'm wrong about the above. Won't change a thing. You will be dissatisfied with the results. I'll be glad its over.

[blueingreen]

6 hours ago, busdriver said:

Then they'll point to Mearsheimer, who agrees with the point above.  The weird part is that his own treatise (The Tragedy of Great Power Politics) would point you to the opposite conclusion.  If objective 1 of any great power is to seek regional hegemony and prevent others from doing the same (method of assuring survival by preventing effective rivals), by his theory Russia was always going to become belligerent again as is seeks hegemony.

It's good to see someone mentioning Mearsheimer. It's amazing how many people essentially paraphrase his work without realizing it. I would argue that Mearsheimer is still following the internal logic of realist theory when he partially blames the West for the war in Ukraine. You're correct when you say that Great Powers seek regional hegemony. The key here is that Russia used to have far more regional hegemony and control over Ukraine and other states. Since the fall of the USSR, Russia has watched former satellite states become NATO allies, which is a serious threat to regional hegemony from the Russian perspective. People can argue that these former Soviet states have the right to self-determination and are free to seek to join whatever military alliance they please (which I agree with), but realism doesn't cast judgement or opine on those matters. It's just a descriptive + predictive framework. Mearsheimer is simply saying that the West should have expected Russia to act belligerently when NATO began expanding beyond their traditional sphere of influence, and that Ukraine would likely be the last straw. He was right about that and predicted it over a decade ago.

[busdriver]

8 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

Mearsheimer is simply saying that the West should have expected Russia to act belligerently when NATO began expanding beyond their traditional sphere of influence, and that Ukraine would likely be the last straw. He was right about that and predicted it over a decade ago.

My point is that anything less than a vasal state in Ukraine would have always been more than Russia could tolerate.  NATO expansion is irrelevant.

[disgruntledemployee]

Or maybe Putin can read too and used it as rationale to invade.  "Look, this book predicted it, I'm invading.

As for the energy argument, I think the world market would prefer Ukraine maintain control over its energy, not Russia.  Yeah, China prefers Russia.  Also, anyone that thinks more energy reduces prices hasn't paid attention to supply controls used by Oil Companies/OPEC.  Remember when Obama released strat reserves just to see oil companies hold it or sell it?

PS. Russia started the invasion, they fired the 1st shot.  All the excuses played out don't justify it and giving them consideration for all those excuses makes them appear more justified. When Russia says a reason, say bullshit.  Which is why many of us BODNers call bullshit to any Russian justification.

[BashiChuni]

So no one wants to address the CIA memo from 2008 predicting this? I guess Bill Burns must have been a Russian troll when he wrote it. 
 

nsplayer you still jerking off to your (NAV) quals? Wanna address the actual argument or just play high school “bro card” games?

 

thats what I thought. Typical liberal who wants to censor points of view counter to yours. 

Edited 17 hours ago by BashiChuni

[raimius]

38 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

So no one wants to address the CIA memo from 2008 predicting this? I guess Bill Burns must have been a Russian troll when he wrote it. 

That the some in the CIA predicted Russia's actions does not justify Russia's actions.  

[blueingreen]

50 minutes ago, busdriver said:

My point is that anything less than a vasal state in Ukraine would have always been more than Russia could tolerate.  NATO expansion is irrelevant.

NATO expansion is very relevant to our current discussion of international relations and realism. You can't just ignore something as consequential as an expanding military alliance.

 

47 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Or maybe Putin can read too and used it as rationale to invade.  "Look, this book predicted it, I'm invading.

I don't think we're dealing with a self-fulfilling prophecy here. Countries have been invaded before. Scholars like Mearsheimer have sought to understand the dynamics between nations for as long as the concept of a nation has existed. We're talking about ideas of human nature that stretch back to Locke, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and even further.

Try to imagine if the roles were reversed: How would you expect the United States to act if Mexico or Canada was inching closer to joining a military alliance with Russia? Try not to insert your personal morals and biases into the equation, because realist theories of international relations don't do that. Wouldn't you agree that a military conflict of some kind might be within the realm of possibility?

Burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the West's actions don't have consequences is strange. It's a natural part of international relations, as inevitable as the laws of physics. I'm not absolving Russia of blame, but we need to stop acting so surprised when a world power acts in ways that world powers have done for thousands of years. If the US expected this war and went ahead with its foreign policy plans anyway, fine. I just want to know that this was calculated. IT doesn't seem like it was, though.  There might have been another way to go about this. Perhaps Ukraine could have gone the Moldova route. Who knows, though.

[blueingreen]

10 minutes ago, raimius said:

That the some in the CIA predicted Russia's actions does not justify Russia's actions.

People are really hung up on this. Nobody here who is arguing that the West should have seen this war coming is justifying Russia's actions. I can't speak for the others, but all I'm saying is that having foresight about a war this big should adjust the broader calculus of the West's international relations. 

[ViperMan]

11 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

So no one wants to address the CIA memo from 2008 predicting this? I guess Bill Burns must have been a Russian troll when he wrote it. 

nsplayer you still jerking off to your (NAV) quals? Wanna address the actual argument or just play high school “bro card” games?

thats what I thought. Typical liberal who wants to censor points of view counter to yours. 

I'll be your huckleberry (again).

The arguments on this board basically break down along two lines. Side one (my side) is that people like Steven Kotkin conclusively point to all the treaties and legal agreements between NATO countries, Russia, et al. These treaties go through things like "no restrictions on member states," "all nations have sovereign rights to join any alliance they choose," and so on and so forth. If you read what I've written before, or have a look at those interviews again, you'll be up to snuff as to what those legal agreements cover and what nations' rights and responsibilities are under them. Interestingly, Russia has signed all those documents - which is a fact in the world you have never addressed in all these long pages...but I digress. It's clear that doing that would not be conducive to your argument, so I don't expect a substantive or direct response to that bit of reality. Moving on.

Argument two (yours) breaks down along the lines of "there were secret meetings between Russia and the US and 'guarantees' were made that certain things wouldn't happen. Like Ukraine joining NATO. Like NATO moving eastward, etc.

Your argument is basically this: Party R telegraphed to us that they would beat up party U if X, Y, or Z thing happened. X, Y, or Z thing happened, therefore, party R goes and beats up party U. Hence it's justified because we knew about it ahead of time. Your argument is literally that someone told us they were going to do an immoral thing, then they did it, now it's justified? Like my favorite tennis player famously lamented: you cannot be serious.

Now, if X, Y, or Z constituted legitimate bases to conduct a beating, then sure. You could argue that party R is in the right. Problem is, there's nothing there. If you want your argument to hold water, you need to provide a moral justification as to why NATO moving eastward, or Ukraine joining NATO, provides Russia a moral basis to conduct an invasion of a sovereign nation. I won't hold my breath.

Anyway, to wrap this up. No one here is denying the 2008 memo or Bill Burns or whatever. It's just that being forewarned about an immoral thing doesn't invalidate that thing's immorality. i.e. your argument doesn't provide a moral basis for the invasion. You think predicting something or declaring something outright makes it moral. That's what and why you're wrong. You telling your wife to expect a beating when she gets home doesn't justify it. Your argument structure suggests you think it would. See, we're not arguing about facts. We're arguing about the moral basis for conducting this conflict. Your facts are there, they're just immaterial and irrelevant to the underlying question as to who is at fault, who has moral culpability, and who is in the wrong.

In essence, you're Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy.

 

[BashiChuni]

22 minutes ago, raimius said:

That the some in the CIA predicted Russia's actions does not justify Russia's actions.  

It was a warning from the cia about what our current path would lead to. 

[busdriver]

10 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

NATO expansion is very relevant to our current discussion of international relations and realism. You can't just ignore something as consequential as an expanding military alliance.

5 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

People are really hung up on this. Nobody here who is arguing that the West should have seen this war coming is justifying Russia's actions.

I'll try this another way.  What relationship between Russia and Ukraine do you think would have been acceptable enough to not result in a war?  

Also, yes people are actually saying America is at fault.

[ViperMan]

13 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

People are really hung up on this. Nobody here who is arguing that the West should have seen this war coming is justifying Russia's actions. I can't speak for the others, but all I'm saying is that having foresight about a war this big should adjust the broader calculus of the West's international relations. 

Well, yeah.

And no. Plenty, two at current count, of people here will not type sentences like "Russia is the aggressor," "Russia is wrong," "Russia should give back the parts of Ukraine they stole," etc. And that is precisely the structure of Bashi's argument. He absolutely thinks Russia is justified.

Gearhog, in his old age, best I can tell, has just discovered his inner pacifist. That's less concerning from a moral standpoint.

[blueingreen]

24 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I'll try this another way.  What relationship between Russia and Ukraine do you think would have been acceptable enough to not result in a war?  

Also, yes people are actually saying America is at fault.

I mentioned it very briefly at the end of my other post, but maybe an ideal outcome for Ukraine would have been something akin to Moldova: A neutral country with cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries. Not a perfect manual for success, and complicated by things like Crimea, whose analogous territory in Moldova would be something like Transnistria, but it seems better than the current status quo.

All this stuff is complex, I'm happy to concede that. I dated a Polish girl once who hated Ukraine as much as she hated Russia because of the Volhynia and Galicia massacres in WWII. History is closer than we think, and people carry these historical grudges for a long time.

I wouldn't say America is at fault for this war, because at the end of the day every sovereign nation, Russia included, determines their own course of action. I just think America / NATO / the West pursued certain policies that, when viewed through a realist lens of international relations, increased the likelihood of conflict. Not everyone subscribes to the realist school of international relations, so they might disagree with me! And that's fine. Hopefully my opinion doesn't render me an anti-American or something, though.

Edited 16 hours ago by blueingreen
spelling

[blueingreen]

16 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, yeah.

And no. Plenty, two at current count, of people here will not type sentences like "Russia is the aggressor," "Russia is wrong," "Russia should give back the parts of Ukraine they stole," etc. And that is precisely the structure of Bashi's argument. He absolutely thinks Russia is justified.

Gearhog, in his old age, best I can tell, has just discovered his inner pacifist. That's less concerning from a moral standpoint.

I think that's where the disconnect is. Some people are having a moral argument, others are talking about norms of international relations, and wires are getting crossed as a result. Russia is in the moral wrong here, but scholars like Mearsheimer would say they're acting "correctly", or in accordance with realist principles of international relations.

[BashiChuni]

25 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, yeah.

And no. Plenty, two at current count, of people here will not type sentences like "Russia is the aggressor," "Russia is wrong," "Russia should give back the parts of Ukraine they stole," etc. And that is precisely the structure of Bashi's argument. He absolutely thinks Russia is justified.

Gearhog, in his old age, best I can tell, has just discovered his inner pacifist. That's less concerning from a moral standpoint.

i didn't necessarily say justified. i think we had a hand in fermenting this conflict...the memo in 2008 warned about it...and the 2014 coup which the US orchestrated in Ukraine certainly didn't help. also the biden involvement in ukraine is at the very least interesting...probably a lot more to that story. and the cia outposts along the Ukrainian border probably didn't do anything to calm tensions.

let me ask you this...why does the US not officially recognize Taiwan as it's own independent country? straight from wikipedia:

---

"Over the past four decades, the U.S. government's policy of deliberate ambiguity toward Taiwan has been viewed as critical to stabilizing cross-strait relations by seeking to deter the PRC from using force toward the region and dissuade Taiwan from seeking independence."

---

 

we know that if we recognize them, China gets mad and invades. so we are SMART and don't provoke the Chinese.

Now insert Ukraine and Russia into that statement. its intellectually dishonest to say putin invaded "unprovoked". he didn't. he was certainly provoked by western actions. justified? i'm not arguing that point...i'm simply stating we had a chance to avoid the whole mess in the first place.

Edited 16 hours ago by BashiChuni

[ViperMan]

5 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

I think that's where the disconnect is. Some people are having a moral argument, others are talking about norms of international relations, and wires are getting crossed as a result. Russia is in the moral wrong here, but scholars like Mearsheimer would say they're acting "correctly", or in accordance with realist principles of international relations.

Fair enough. We probably are. This is the internet.

One test though: Try to get Bashi to write any one of the three example sentences above assigning culpability to Russia. I predict he won't do it.

[busdriver]

6 minutes ago, blueingreen said:

 something akin to Moldova: A neutral country with cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, Ukraine, and other Eastern European countries. Not a perfect manual for success, and complicated by things like Crimea, whose analogous territory in Moldova would be something like Transnistria, but it seems better than the current status quo.

I would say the only example of an acceptable relationship is Belarus.  A puppet.  It would take active actions by the West to ensure that position for Ukraine.

Mearshimer blames the US for this war.

 

 

[gearhog]

4 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Well, yeah.

And no. Plenty, two at current count, of people here will not type sentences like "Russia is the aggressor," "Russia is wrong," "Russia should give back the parts of Ukraine they stole," etc. And that is precisely the structure of Bashi's argument. He absolutely thinks Russia is justified.

Gearhog, in his old age, best I can tell, has just discovered his inner pacifist. That's less concerning from a moral standpoint.

No problem at all. Russia is an aggressor. Russia is wrong. I've said Russia sucks a hundred times in this thread. Search it. Beside the point.

You're confusing the word "justified" with "inevitable". American Pitbulls are horrible disgusting animals. One could say they all deserve to die. I don't believe that. They exist and they suck. When you see one, you respect it's existence as you would any other dangerous creature. There's always a chance they run down the street and randomly attack you. Maybe they don't. But if you approach the edge of their yard, you're gonna get their hackles up. Make and hold eye contact with it. Show your teeth. Raise your hand to it. When it leaps over the fence and annihilates you, you'll cry and complain that it was bad doggie and shouldn't have happened.

You can bitch all you want that attack wasn't justified, but you'd have to be a moron to not realize it was inevitable.

I'm not old. I'm 48. I could outrun you. 😄

And again: I'm a stickler for accuracy. Choose the correct words. I'm not a pacifist, I'm more of a reluctant warrior. War is sometimes necessary, but I prefer to avoid it.

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, ViperMan said:

Fair enough. We probably are. This is the internet.

One test though: Try to get Bashi to write any one of the three example sentences above assigning culpability to Russia. I predict he won't do it.

you guys are really obsessed with me. i feel loved.

[ViperMan]

3 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

i didn't necessarily say justified. i think we had a hand in fermenting this conflict...the memo in 2008 warned about it...and the 2014 coup which the US orchestrated in Ukraine certainly didn't help. also the biden involvement in ukraine is at the least interesting...probably a lot more to that story. and the cia outposts along the Ukrainian border probably didn't do anything to calm tensions.

let me ask you this...why does the US not officially recognize Taiwan as it's own independent country? straight from wikipedia:

---

"Over the past four decades, the U.S. government's policy of deliberate ambiguity toward Taiwan has been viewed as critical to stabilizing cross-strait relations by seeking to deter the PRC from using force toward the region and dissuade Taiwan from seeking independence."

---

we know that if we recognize them, China gets mad and invades. so we are SMART and don't provoke the Chinese.

Now insert Ukraine and Russia into that statement. its intellectually dishonest to say putin invaded "unprovoked". he didn't. he was certainly provoked by western actions. justified? i'm not arguing that point...i'm simply stating we had a chance to avoid the whole mess in the first place.

You address Russia's signatures on all the documents placing no membership restrictions on NATO countries first. And as part of your response, outline why they were allowed to lie on those documents and break those agreements when they invaded Ukraine. Finally, indicate why whatever reasoning you provide for the preceding is sufficient justification for their invasion.

I bet a dollar that in whatever reply you muster that you won't.

 

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, ViperMan said:

You address Russia's signatures on all the documents placing no membership restrictions on NATO countries first. And as part of your response, outline why they were allowed to lie on those documents and break those agreements when they invaded Ukraine. Finally, indicate why whatever reasoning you provide for the preceding is sufficient justification for their invasion.

I bet a dollar that in whatever reply you muster that you won't.

 

can you post the documents here for me to look at?

i'm not justifying the invasion i'm saying we provoked it (two different issues) and could have avoided it. again...the Burns "no means no" memo is my proof.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, blueingreen said:

Mearsheimer is simply saying that the West should have expected Russia to act belligerently when NATO began expanding beyond their traditional sphere of influence, and that Ukraine would likely be the last straw. He was right about that and predicted it over a decade ago.

this is a fantastic post.

[ViperMan]

13 minutes ago, gearhog said:

No problem at all. Russia is an aggressor. Russia is wrong. I've said Russia sucks a hundred times in this thread. Search it. Beside the point.

You're confusing the word "justified" with "inevitable". American Pitbulls are horrible disgusting animals. One could say they all deserve to die. I don't believe that. They exist and they suck. When you see one, you respect it's existence as you would any other dangerous creature. There's always a chance they run down the street and randomly attack you. Maybe they don't. But if you approach the edge of their yard, you're gonna get their hackles up. Make and hold eye contact with it. Show your teeth. Raise your hand to it. When it leaps over the fence and annihilates you, you'll cry and complain that it was bad doggie and shouldn't have happened.

You can bitch all you want that attack wasn't justified, but you'd have to be a moron to not realize it was inevitable.

I'm not old. I'm 48. I could outrun you. 😄

And again: I'm a stickler for accuracy. Choose the correct words. I'm not a pacifist, I'm more of a reluctant warrior. War is sometimes necessary, but I prefer to avoid it.

The implicit contradiction in this post is delicious. The part where you simultaneously assign blame to Russia, and then only a few words later remove all agency from them by likening them to a dog is my favorite.

1 minute ago, BashiChuni said:

can you post the documents here for me to look at?

i'm not justifying the invasion i'm saying we provoked it (two different issues) and could have avoided it. again...the Burns "no means no" memo is my proof.

I wrote two extremely thoughtful responses to you ages ago that included them all. There a link to one a couple posts back. That one contains a link the the previous.

Say it. Say Russia is wrong.

[blueingreen]

17 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I would say the only example of an acceptable relationship is Belarus.  A puppet.  It would take active actions by the West to ensure that position for Ukraine.

Mearshimer blames the US for this war.

There's not much left for me to say, I just respectfully disagree. I think a Moldova situation is completely acceptable to the Russians, and they've indicated as much. NATO troops in Ukraine is a red line for them. Putin said he would accept a return to Ukraine's 1991 borders if the country remains neutral (Article), just like Moldova. World leaders don't lie as often as one might think. Again, I'm not casting any judgement, I'm just trying to deal with the cards we've currently been dealt.

As for Mearsheimer, his views are far more nuanced than simply saying "he blames the US". Blame isn't always a binary thing. America has not been an innocent bystander. We have involved ourselves in the domestic affairs of Ukraine for decades, for better or worse. It's possible to pursue foreign policies that can eventually lead to provocation. Denying this is, as I said before, putting our heads in the sand.