Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Banzai]

1 minute ago, gearhog said:

Straw man tactic. Not one has said this. You're inventing positions to argue against (or, in this case, copy/paste memes as a response) because you you're not equipped to make your case intelligently. It's apparent to me, and it's apparent to you.

I made a case about Neville that you conveniently ignored. Let’s start there big guy.

[gearhog]

Just now, Banzai said:

I made a case about Neville that you conveniently ignored. Let’s start there big guy.

Go find it and post it below.

[Banzai]

26 minutes ago, Banzai said:

Might want to look up Neville Chamberlain and start learning from history before you doom yourself to the wrong side of it.

Here ya go

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Banzai said:

Here ya go

Wow, you really outdid yourself. I remember it, I just wanted to see if you'd search for it.  First, you didn't make any case. That's why I didn't respond. You said I might want to look him up. I might not. Lay out an argument. I doubt you'd be able to type a single paragraph from your memory of the event.

While doing so, remember Godwin's Law that states the longer an online discussion becomes, the probability of the losing side invoking Nazi and Hitler approaches 1.

[Banzai]

Just now, gearhog said:

Wow, you really outdid yourself. I remember it, I just wanted to see if you'd search for it.  First, you didn't make any case. That's why I didn't respond. You said I might want to look him up. I might not. Lay out an argument. I doubt you'd be able to type a single paragraph from your memory of the event.

While doing so, remember Godwin's Law that states the longer an online discussion becomes, the probability of the losing side invoking Nazi and Hitler approaches 1.

Hey buddy, you’re the one now being difficult. Why is it so hard to engage in intellectual discussion?

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Banzai said:

Hey buddy, you’re the one now being difficult. Why is it so hard to engage in intellectual discussion?

You mean with a series of posts containing no arguments, just insults and memes?

I got a few minutes. Let's see your best "intellectual discussion". LOL

[Banzai]

Again, let’s discuss if Neville Chamberlain’s strategy of appeasement has any similarities to the foreign policy decisions occurring now. And then let’s get into what we can learn from how that played out. Finally let’s see how your stance makes sense in these contexts.

Since we are being very intellectual here, let’s christen this debate with a relevant quote:

”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”

I expect no fallacies or grammatical errors.

Edited Sunday at 09:39 PM by Banzai

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

It’s fun watching the military members of this forum - who I am 100% certain trained to fight the Russians (because they have moral and political views opposite of the US and have for about 75 years) - start gargling and regurgitating Russia is our friend propaganda. Do as you’re told, guys.

Yes, yes, sow division between western allies, push for the dissolution of NATO, Russia is the oppressed one here, Ukraine started the war. Might want to look up Neville Chamberlain and start learning from history before you doom yourself to the wrong side of it.

It’s interesting you lecture people to learn history. 
 

yet your side is the same people who refuse to examine the history of the Ukraine war and what led to putins decision to invade. Parroting the “Putins unprovoked invasion” line. 
 

After we won the Cold War NATO should have been disbanded. 

[BashiChuni]

[gearhog]

Again, a comparison to Nazi Germany and Hitler is the ultimate fall back position for a failing argument. It's a cliche.

Neville was dealing with a rapidly rearming Germany with a leader who explicitly stated his goal was domination of Europe and wasn't bound by any international agreements or institutions such as the UN. Hitler nearly entirely rejected coexistence with the nations he believed to be responsible for the ruination of Germany. Russia requires international economic interdependence through sales of energy and other resource exports. Germany did not. Russia is a nuclear nation, yet doesn't seek a totalitarian endgame like Hilter's Thousand Year Reich.

Neville and Europe were still reeling from WWI and didn't have the economic or military power to meaningful oppose Hitler in a conventional conflict. Both Europe/NATO and Russia are nuclear armed. Neither is gong to invade. How can you expect Russia to launch and invasion of Europe when they could barely push a few dozen miles into Ukraine? And that was with no NATO troops participating. Putin may be a terrible person, but he's pragmatic whereas Hitler was ideological.

Your comparison is desperate and an intentional conflation of two completely difference scenarios, periods of time, technology, motivations, etc. All of your arguments are just hyperventilating fear-mongering touting an imaginary worst-case scenario. You're the type of person where someone could plant a seed of fear and doubt, and you'd ruminate on it until you worked yourself into frenzy believing there is no action that shouldn't be take to completely eliminate your perceived threat. You're motivated by emotion, whereas I try to find reason and logic.

 

 

[Banzai]

3 minutes ago, BashiChuni said:

After we won the Cold War NATO should have been disbanded. 

Oh yeah, give me those talking points harder.

2 minutes ago, gearhog said:

Your comparison is desperate and an intentional conflation of two completely difference scenarios, periods of time, technology, motivations, etc.

You don’t like historical analogies and then go on an ad hominem? That’s minus 1 point, not looking good for you right now.

[BashiChuni]

look you guys can cry and bitch all you want, but the fact remains that the US is done with Project Ukraine.

there is no path forward for ukranian victory...other than a full blown WW3 with nato troops being committed. is that what you fools want?

i don't. and most americans don't want that either.

[SurelySerious]

Again, a comparison to Nazi Germany and Hitler
 
 

Well, the topic is appeasing authoritarian dictators in Europe who used mechanized armies to invade neighbors under false pretenses…so enlighten us how you would like to expand it further than someone who has done that in the last 150 years. I’d love it if you gave us relevant examples across history that aren’t Hitler. Hell, name a book. Need some new reading.

[BashiChuni]

1 minute ago, SurelySerious said:

Well, the topic is appeasing authoritarian dictators in Europe who used mechanized armies to invade neighbors under false pretenses…so enlighten us how you would like to expand it further than someone who has done that in the last 150 years. I’d love it if you gave us relevant examples across history that aren’t Hitler. Hell, name a book. Need some new reading.

you think putin wants to push all the way to paris? go with your assessment and logic. this will be good!

[Banzai]

Just now, BashiChuni said:

you think putin wants to push all the way to paris? go with your assessment and logic. this will be good!

Oh but he never said that Bashi.

[SurelySerious]

you think putin wants to push all the way to paris? go with your assessment and logic. this will be good!

You do a lot of mental gymnastics.

[gearhog]

1 minute ago, Banzai said:

You don’t like historical analogies and then go on an ad hominem? That’s minus 1 point, not looking good for you right now.

Huh? You were begging me to address your concern and participate in an intellectual discussion and this is all you've got?

Just gonna abandon the whole issue you were so insistent to discuss, eh?

Out of all that, the only thing you find to comment on a was a perceived offense to your delicate sensibilities. 

It just further illustrates my point that in a debate, you respond with emotion, while ignoring all the reason and logic. If I described a category of human that stereotypically exhibited that characteristic, what immediately springs to mind?

[SurelySerious]

Huh? You were begging me to address your concern and participate in an intellectual discussion and this is all you've got?
Just gonna abandon the whole issue you were so insistent to discuss, eh?
Out of all that, the only thing you find to comment on a was a perceived offense to your delicate sensibilities. 
It just further illustrates my point that in a debate, you respond with emotion, while ignoring all the reason and logic. If I described a category of human that stereotypically exhibited that characteristic, what immediately springs to mind?

What have you posted that would lead anyone to believe you’re not actually describing your own actions?

[Banzai]

Here’s a response for ya:

Your characterization of Putin's Russia is astoundingly naive. Putin has explicitly stated his belief that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe," and has systematically dismantled international agreements when they no longer suit him. But sure, he's just a pragmatic businessman selling gas.

Russia "barely pushed a few dozen miles into Ukraine"? Perhaps because Ukraine fiercely defended itself with Western support - precisely the response Chamberlain failed to organize against Hitler's early aggressions. Without that support, Kyiv would have fallen in days, as your "pragmatic" Putin expected.

Your dismissal of nuclear deterrence is particularly amusing. If nuclear weapons make invasion impossible, why did Russia invade Ukraine at all? Why did they annex Crimea? Your own argument collapses under basic scrutiny.

I'm not "hyperventilating" about imaginary scenarios - I'm observing actual events that have already happened. Russia has already invaded a sovereign nation. They've already annexed territory. They've already threatened other neighbors. These aren't hypotheticals; they're recent history.

The true emotional reasoning is believing that an authoritarian who has repeatedly used military force to achieve political aims will suddenly become satisfied and peaceful if we just let him have what he wants this time. Your "reason and logic" look suspiciously like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-intellectual garb.

But please, continue explaining how appeasement will work wonderfully this time, unlike literally every other time in history it's been tried.

[BashiChuni]

if you actually read what Putin writes you'd know that he's not another hitler and therefore the chamberlin analogy is incorrect.

"The Western authors of the anti-Russia project set up the Ukrainian political system in such a way that presidents, members of parliament and ministers would change but the attitude of separation from and enmity with Russia would remain. Reaching peace was the main election slogan of the incumbent president. He came to power with this. The promises turned out to be lies. Nothing has changed. And in some ways the situation in Ukraine and around Donbas has even degenerated.

In the anti-Russia project, there is no place either for a sovereign Ukraine or for the political forces that are trying to defend its real independence. Those who talk about reconciliation in Ukrainian society, about dialogue, about finding a way out of the current impasse are labelled as “pro-Russian” agents.

Again, for many people in Ukraine, the anti-Russia project is simply unacceptable. And there are millions of such people. But they are not allowed to raise their heads. They have had their legal opportunity to defend their point of view in fact taken away from them. They are intimidated, driven underground. Not only are they persecuted for their convictions, for the spoken word, for the open expression of their position, but they are also killed. Murderers, as a rule, go unpunished.

Today, the “right” patriot of Ukraine is only the one who hates Russia. Moreover, the entire Ukrainian statehood, as we understand it, is proposed to be further built exclusively on this idea. Hate and anger, as world history has repeatedly proved this, are a very shaky foundation for sovereignty, fraught with many serious risks and dire consequences.

All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russia project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia. And to those who will undertake such an attempt, I would like to say that this way they will destroy their own country.

The incumbent authorities in Ukraine like to refer to Western experience, seeing it as a model to follow. Just have a look at how Austria and Germany, the USA and Canada live next to each other. Close in ethnic composition, culture, in fact sharing one language, they remain sovereign states with their own interests, with their own foreign policy. But this does not prevent them from the closest integration or allied relations. They have very conditional, transparent borders. And when crossing them the citizens feel at home. They create families, study, work, do business. Incidentally, so do millions of those born in Ukraine who now live in Russia. We see them as our own close people.

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."

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/On_the_Historical_Unity_of_Russians_and_Ukrainians

 

the bolded text is why he invaded.

[Banzai]

I find it remarkable that you'd quote Putin's own carefully crafted rhetoric as evidence against the Chamberlain analogy, when it actually strengthens the parallel.

The statement you've bolded - "we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there to be used against Russia" - mirrors almost exactly the justification Hitler used for annexing the Sudetenland. He too spoke of protecting ethnic Germans from being "used against" Germany.

When Putin speaks of "historical territories," he's referring to what are now internationally recognized sovereign nations. This is obviously a dangerous concept. By this same logic, Mongolia could claim large parts of Russia as its "historical territory" from the Mongol Empire, or Turkey could claim much of Eastern Europe from Ottoman times. History doesn't confer permanent ownership rights.

You've shared Putin's eloquent bs about "respecting" Ukraine, but his words stand in stark contrast to his actions. He has annexed Crimea, fueled separatist movements, launched a full-scale invasion, targeted civilian infrastructure, and even orchestrated the transfer of Ukrainian children to Russia. These aren't the actions of someone who "respects Ukrainian traditions" or desires "to see their country free." They're the actions of someone who fundamentally questions Ukraine's right to exist as an independent nation.

The Chamberlain analogy is apt precisely because both situations involve an authoritarian leader using historical and ethnic justifications for territorial expansion while simultaneously claiming peaceful intentions. Chamberlain made the grave error of trusting Hitler's rhetoric over his demonstrated pattern of behavior - exactly what you are doing (and suggesting we do) with Putin.

History provides us with valuable patterns to recognize. Ignoring these patterns doesn't make one more reasonable or logical - it makes one willfully blind to established historical lessons that have been paid for in blood.

[gearhog]

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

Well, the topic is appeasing authoritarian dictators in Europe who used mechanized armies to invade neighbors under false pretenses…so enlighten us how you would like to expand it further than someone who has done that in the last 150 years.

In your mind, that is the entirety of the situation.  It's a simple-minded comparison and you could draw a thousand meaningless parallels. The present circumstance is far more complex than "A bad guy invaded somebody else".

But as to the last part, are you asking me to give you an example of a country... that invaded another country... under false pretenses in the last 150 years?

If you were to guess at the example I might be compelled to give... what would it be?

1 hour ago, SurelySerious said:

What have you posted that would lead anyone to believe you’re not actually describing your own actions?

I don't know? I posted a lot. Go read it.

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Here’s a response for ya:

Your characterization of Putin's Russia is astoundingly naive. Putin has explicitly stated his belief that Ukraine has no right to exist as a sovereign nation, has called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe," and has systematically dismantled international agreements when they no longer suit him. But sure, he's just a pragmatic businessman selling gas.

So your belief is it is never okay for a sovereign country to be annexed by another? We're allowed to reach back into history for examples, correct? I'm just trying to think of one as I sit here on the 25th floor overlooking the great state of Texas. I'll get back to you on that.

Good point on the dismantling of international agreements.

"Good morning. I’ve just concluded a meeting of my National Security Council. We reviewed what I discussed with my friend, President Vladimir Putin, over the course of many meetings, many months. And that is the need for America to move beyond the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty.

Today, I have given formal notice to Russia, in accordance with the treaty, that the United States of America is withdrawing from this almost 30-year-old treaty. I have concluded the ABM Treaty hinders our government’s ability to develop ways to protect our people from future terrorist or rogue-state missile attacks."

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/article/article/1924779/us-withdraws-from-intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-treaty/

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Russia "barely pushed a few dozen miles into Ukraine"? Perhaps because Ukraine fiercely defended itself with Western support - precisely the response Chamberlain failed to organize against Hitler's early aggressions. Without that support, Kyiv would have fallen in days, as your "pragmatic" Putin expected.

History didn't start in 2022. The USA meddled in Ukrainian politics as has been documented extensively here. And as a result, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives have been lost, the nation is in ruins, divided. It is not for you to say what is best for Ukrainians.

https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1895983497464225938

 

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

Your dismissal of nuclear deterrence is particularly amusing. If nuclear weapons make invasion impossible, why did Russia invade Ukraine at all? Why did they annex Crimea? Your own argument collapses under basic scrutiny.

As I said, this has been covered here. Ukraine didn't have nukes. Europe does. How is that difficult to understand?

1 hour ago, Banzai said:

I'm not "hyperventilating" about imaginary scenarios - I'm observing actual events that have already happened. Russia has already invaded a sovereign nation. They've already annexed territory. They've already threatened other neighbors. These aren't hypotheticals; they're recent history.

The true emotional reasoning is believing that an authoritarian who has repeatedly used military force to achieve political aims will suddenly become satisfied and peaceful if we just let him have what he wants this time. Your "reason and logic" look suspiciously like wishful thinking dressed up in pseudo-intellectual garb.

But please, continue explaining how appeasement will work wonderfully this time, unlike literally every other time in history it's been tried.

Have you followed your position through to a logical conclusion? What is the resolution you envision? None of it makes sense. Where do you think continuously feeding Ukrainians into the meat grinder leads? It's clear you do not want a negotiated peace. Why not?

Perhaps you think if we fund Ukraine enough, they'll never run out of young men to kidnap off the streets? Do you think that's reality? Russia has existed for what, a 1000 years? You think it's just going to fold?

If Ukraine does run out of soldiers, do you believe the USA should supply them? This is probably my most avoided question. No one wants to answer this one.

If the USA does supply boots on the ground, do you believe the cause worthy enough to go yourself, or just some infantrymen from Ft. Campbell?

If the cause is worthy then, why isn't it worthy now? There's a line you'll draw that defines the limits of your support to Ukraine. Where is it? There is absolutely nothing stopping you from providing direct material support to Ukraine now. Why is your fervent support only limited to your zinger replies to me? Virtue-signalling. Fact: you really don't believe what you are typing. You don't think Russia is an existential threat to you or your country or your actions would match your words. Simple logic.

I don't want my country, my money, protracting a deadly conflict that is not a threat to my nation. It's a great position. All I have to do is call BS when you break out in hysterics "Putin is literally Hitler!" Your position is much harder to defend because testing your "belief" requires you to do much more than advocate for others to continue the conflict.

You're not gonna like this: I think you'd send 100K more Ukrainians to die only so that you would win an online debate. You would not trade places with any of the young men in the videos above being thrown into a van.

Now relax. Because it's not going to happen. You can claim that you "would have" joined the fight now knowing the fight is ending. The US is done. Like it or not, it's reality. Complain about it as much as you want because you're pissing in the wind.

 

 

Edited Sunday at 11:39 PM by gearhog

[SurelySerious]

 
 

It’s not simple-minded, it’s the strongest parallel, but I’m not doing your work for you. You have written a lot… of verbose personal attacks. It’s not worth sifting through to find the needle that may have been a logical, coherent argument.

Your justification of Putin’s actions requires accepting a revisionist history authored by the man himself, which does not make it a just war; it makes an excuse to do what he wants. As he did in 2014. No reason to believe he stops where he is now given his history.

[Banzai]

@gearhog

Your response relies on a collection of logical fallacies rather than substantive argument.

First, your Texas reference commits the fallacy of false equivalence. Comparing 1840s annexation to a 2022 invasion in the modern international order is like comparing medieval trial-by-combat to modern courts.

Your ABM Treaty example is a false analogy. The US followed legal withdrawal procedures with proper notice, while Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum it signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

You then pivot to the genetic fallacy, dismissing Ukrainian agency by attributing their resistance solely to "US meddling" rather than addressing Ukrainians' own repeatedly expressed desire for sovereignty in multiple elections.

Your nuclear deterrence argument creates a strawman. My point was about the inconsistency in your position, not a claim Russia would invade NATO.

Most revealing is your framing of Ukrainian resistance as "feeding into the meat grinder" - a classic appeal to emotion that denies Ukrainians' agency. By this logic, any smaller nation should surrender to avoid bloodshed when invaded by a larger power.

Your numerous assumptions about what I "really believe" and what I "would do" are textbook ad hominem attacks, constructing an imaginary opponent rather than engaging with the actual argument.

You conclude with another fallacy - false dilemma - suggesting the only options are complete Ukrainian surrender or nuclear war, ignoring the many other possible resolutions.

When arguments fail, your closing meme resorts to mockery - the last refuge when facts aren't on your side.

The core issue remains: a sovereign nation was invaded under false pretenses. Supporting Ukraine's defense isn't "virtue signaling" - it's upholding the fundamental principle that borders shouldn't be changed by force.

[gearhog]

24 minutes ago, Banzai said:

@gearhog

Your response relies on a collection of logical fallacies rather than substantive argument.

First, your Texas reference commits the fallacy of false equivalence. Comparing 1840s annexation to a 2022 invasion in the modern international order is like comparing medieval trial-by-combat to modern courts.

Your ABM Treaty example is a false analogy. The US followed legal withdrawal procedures with proper notice, while Russia violated the Budapest Memorandum it signed guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament.

You then pivot to the genetic fallacy, dismissing Ukrainian agency by attributing their resistance solely to "US meddling" rather than addressing Ukrainians' own repeatedly expressed desire for sovereignty in multiple elections.

Your nuclear deterrence argument creates a strawman. My point was about the inconsistency in your position, not a claim Russia would invade NATO.

Most revealing is your framing of Ukrainian resistance as "feeding into the meat grinder" - a classic appeal to emotion that denies Ukrainians' agency. By this logic, any smaller nation should surrender to avoid bloodshed when invaded by a larger power.

Your numerous assumptions about what I "really believe" and what I "would do" are textbook ad hominem attacks, constructing an imaginary opponent rather than engaging with the actual argument.

You conclude with another fallacy - false dilemma - suggesting the only options are complete Ukrainian surrender or nuclear war, ignoring the many other possible resolutions.

When arguments fail, your closing meme resorts to mockery - the last refuge when facts aren't on your side.

The core issue remains: a sovereign nation was invaded under false pretenses. Supporting Ukraine's defense isn't "virtue signaling" - it's upholding the fundamental principle that borders shouldn't be changed by force.

Huh. No way. The structure and style of your reply doesn't match your earlier replies. And you wrote all of that in a few minutes. This reply is exactly that of a language model. It's why you didn't hit the reply button. I copied and pasted my post into ChatGPT, told it to create a rebuttal, and got a similar response.

I'm sure you want to portray yourself as noble individual, right and wrong, and all that. You probably have some morals, values, and principles.

Answer me this: Did you use ChatGPT or any other language model to help you create a response to my earlier post?

I noticed that the response you copied and pasted above didn't address anything pertaining to your personal belief. That's the flaw in ChatGPT.

Should American soldiers be committed to directly engage Russia over the conflict in Ukraine?

Are you willing to go?

LLMs can't answer this.

Edited Monday at 12:19 AM by gearhog