"In the 'battle for Ukraine,' the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia's vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry."
No, I’m telling you basic facts of the situation which are well documented and plenty of western experts such as Chomsky, Sachs, and Mearsheimer agree on. You are either horribly misinformed about the subject you’re discussing or just trolling.
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict.
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people such as yourself are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
It sounds like you’re basically saying that, if someone threatens you with violence unless you adhere to their demands, not adhering to those demands is justification for that violence. So you should give up your lunch money under the threat of a bully, and the bully is right either way - in taking your lunch money, or beating you up for not giving it up willingly.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
That is to say, if someone comes at you with a weapon and clearly indicates they’re going to kill you, it is reasonable to kill them first. “Expansion of NATO” does not, in any way, meet this bar.
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. If the bully wants to attack one of them, they will all respond together and overwhelm the bully. The bully is now just cowering and crying fowl merely because they’re now the smaller, more vulnerable one. When the group is actually making no threats whatsoever, other than to rightfully defend themselves and prevent harm against themselves.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
Oh you mean the way NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan?
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. I
Given the actual history of NATO, it’s a group of countries that have been invading other countries for decades and destroying them. The fact that you ignore this fact clearly demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith here. I have nothing more to say to you.
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
I have nothing more to say to you.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric. You may as well be spitting out ejaculations from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I do not endorse NATO, nor any military organisation. You endorse Russian military. Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
You endorse Russian military.
Where?
Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war. Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.
If you were arguing in good faith you would recognise this and try to get me to see your point of view. Instead, you’re creating a show for those that blindly support you, in an attempt to turn them against me and get me to shut up. You are trying to fight me, trying to defeat me, rather than trying to prove me wrong.
This is an argument of ideas, not a fight between two people. The more you try to fight me, the less value your ideas have.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
Yay, personal insults, that means you win!
You endorse Russian military.
Where?
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war.
You have completely avoided commenting on Russia’s motive for invading Ukraine, a foreign country that Russia has no justification in occupying - nevermind any justification for killing civilians.
Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
Nonetheless, I do have some respect for you. I’ve even offered an olive branch here and there where I agree with your sentiment. However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn’t some argument of ideas, it’s a basic verifiable fact, and what you’re doing here is just sophistry.
Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.
Nah, you’re just generating bullshit here.
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
This itself is a false statement.
However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
It’s actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
No, I’m telling you basic facts of the situation which are well documented and plenty of western experts such as Chomsky, Sachs, and Mearsheimer agree on. You are either horribly misinformed about the subject you’re discussing or just trolling.
So why did Russia invade Ukraine?
The war is a result of tensions that were largely escalated by NATO, and plenty of experts in the west have been warning about this for many years now. Here’s what Chomsky has to say on the subject:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Academics, such as John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs gave talks explaining why NATO actions would ultimately lead to conflict.
These and many other voices were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people such as yourself are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine out of the blue and completely unprovoked.
So, your argument is that people arguing in the 1990s that expansion of NATO was a bad idea (because said expansion would encourage Russia into hostile actions) is justification for Russia to enact said hostile actions in 2014 and 2021?
It sounds like you’re basically saying that, if someone threatens you with violence unless you adhere to their demands, not adhering to those demands is justification for that violence. So you should give up your lunch money under the threat of a bully, and the bully is right either way - in taking your lunch money, or beating you up for not giving it up willingly.
My argument is that all violent thugs are cunts. Plain and simple. There is no valid justification for violence, unless it is to prevent a direct threat of violence against yourself.
That is to say, if someone comes at you with a weapon and clearly indicates they’re going to kill you, it is reasonable to kill them first. “Expansion of NATO” does not, in any way, meet this bar.
To take the analogy further, NATO is merely a group of countries banding together and saying they won’t let bullies get away with being violent cunts. If the bully wants to attack one of them, they will all respond together and overwhelm the bully. The bully is now just cowering and crying fowl merely because they’re now the smaller, more vulnerable one. When the group is actually making no threats whatsoever, other than to rightfully defend themselves and prevent harm against themselves.
No, the argument is that NATO is an aggressive alliance that has been invading and pillaging countries for decades that continues to expand and encircle Russia. This isn’t my argument, this is the argument from countless scholars, historians, and politicians.
Oh you mean the way NATO invaded Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan?
Given the actual history of NATO, it’s a group of countries that have been invading other countries for decades and destroying them. The fact that you ignore this fact clearly demonstrates that you are not arguing in good faith here. I have nothing more to say to you.
That is not what you have presented, neither in your comments nor the sources you have linked.
You haven’t said anything of significance here, just useless regurgitated rhetoric. You may as well be spitting out ejaculations from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.
I asked you to present reasons why the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was justified. All you have said is “people in the West said Russia would do it” as if that justifies literal genocide.
I do not endorse NATO, nor any military organisation. You endorse Russian military. Yet, you have shown no reasonable grounds to endorse their hostile invasion of a foreign country.
This is a well known fact that’s beyond dispute.
I’ve provided you with history and the context, as well as numerous resources from respected scholars. Meanwhile, you’re the one who’s been regurgitating useless rhetoric here.
I’m sorry to see that you lack reading in the reading comprehension department.
Where?
No, I’ve explained to you in detail how NATO created the situation for the war. Yet, it’s plainly clear that you don’t care about facts and just keep regurgitating nonsense here. I’m sure you’ll leave another content free reply so enjoy having the last word.
Holy thread revival Batman!!
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.
If you were arguing in good faith you would recognise this and try to get me to see your point of view. Instead, you’re creating a show for those that blindly support you, in an attempt to turn them against me and get me to shut up. You are trying to fight me, trying to defeat me, rather than trying to prove me wrong.
This is an argument of ideas, not a fight between two people. The more you try to fight me, the less value your ideas have.
Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.
Yay, personal insults, that means you win!
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
You have completely avoided commenting on Russia’s motive for invading Ukraine, a foreign country that Russia has no justification in occupying - nevermind any justification for killing civilians.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
Nonetheless, I do have some respect for you. I’ve even offered an olive branch here and there where I agree with your sentiment. However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
I wish you were a better 'man.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn’t some argument of ideas, it’s a basic verifiable fact, and what you’re doing here is just sophistry.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
Nah, you’re just generating bullshit here.
That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
This itself is a false statement.
It’s actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
I wish you’d follow your own advice.