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.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries.
To quote you, “Where?” Where did I say that?
You’re making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren’t presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you’re trying to attack me personally.
Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
I haven’t said they don’t attack others, you haven’t offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You’ve mentioned a few countries, but I’m sure you know it’s far more nuanced than that. Instead, you’re just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.
Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They’re doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are “selling” the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven’t raped the country’s finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government’s problem.
Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples’ money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin’s estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it’s not Putin’s money. Throw all the young country men’s lives away in Ukraine, they’re not Putin’s people, who cares.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Again, personal attacks. You’re not making meaningful arguments, you’re just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that’s on topic?
No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them
Like this.
This itself is a false statement.
What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
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 haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.
I wish you’d follow your own advice.
Man, I’m always trying. I don’t get it right every time, but I keep trying.
I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.
You said “Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true”, perhaps clarify which statement you’re referring to then, because based on the thread that’s the statement I made that you’re disputing.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense.
Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It’s a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.
The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I’m referencing you start going off about name dropping.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
It’s not a personal attack, it’s a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.
Please, present the facts.
I have, go back and read this thread where I’ve presented the facts already.
What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I’ve explained why it’s false.
I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Nice straw man there.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.
I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you’re unwilling to. Either way it’s clear that further discussion is pointless.
You said “Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true”, perhaps clarify which statement you’re referring to then, because based on the thread that’s the statement I made that you’re disputing.
I was pretty clear, but let’s compile the comments together:
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.
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.
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.
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true.
The rest of your replies seem to be going round in circles. So I’ll distill it down to this:
#What. specifically, is the justification for Russia to invade Ukraine?
I’ll distill it down to this, nobody is justifying anything. Talking about justification is a moral argument, and I find it pointless. What I explained to you in detail are the reasons why the invasion happened. The way to avoid wars is to understand what the motivations of different countries are, what their red lines are, and how to come to compromises that everybody is willing to live with. That’s what diplomacy is and this is what the west is incapable of doing. Evidently this is something you’re having trouble comprehending.
You haven’t given any detail though, you’ve just dropped names and linked to long-winded articles, and when I’ve read those articles I’ve found that they don’t line up with your statements.
I can understand diplomacy and finding a common ground. I’ve been in enough relationships with bad women to know that all too well.
What I see from Russia is a desire to force a decision in their favour, with a bullshit statement along the lines of “well, you didn’t do what we asked, so we’re going to follow through with our threats”. As if that somehow makes the threats themselves justified.
You continue to contradict yourself. You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things. Pick a lane. If you want me to magically distill decades of geopolitics for you into a single sentence that’s not going to happen. If you want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here then spend the time reading about it instead of arguing on the internet.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario. Then the west and Ukraine proceeded to ignore these agreements, and now neither the west nor Russia are willing to back down.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
Hah full blown aggression, I hope you’re paid per ascii character.
Pick a lane.
I’ve told you my lane. My heels are in the sand, and I call out bullshit wherever I see it. You’re just so far on one side you can’t acknowledge that I’m on your side with some things.
You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things.
I summarised this:
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?
That was basically what your handful of links from Western scholars said.
In saying that, I was far more specific than you have been. If you wish to challenge me on any particular point, I welcome that, particularly as these are points you’re supposed to be presenting.
Please, give me a specific point to mull over. So far it’s been either generic or diverting.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario.
Yes, the Minsk agreements were created to avoid Russia invading more of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the rest of the world wanted them to stop, now Russia is continuing their invasion.
Nevermind the fact that the agreement basically broke down completely in 2015, well before Russia mobilised in 2022.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
You’re trying to make out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is some sort of forgone conclusion. It wasn’t. It was an active decision to invade and kill people.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
And there we have it, full blown threats. If Russia can’t get its way, if Russia can’t claim the territory it wants, nukes will fly.
I am accutely aware of the threat of nukes, far more than you know. That won’t discourage me from calling out bullshit regardless.
It’s pretty clear that meaningful discussion is not possible here. I’ve explained my position to you repeatedly, and you just continue to regurgitate the same tropes you started with. Nobody is making any threats, I’ve simply explained to you where this all leads if neither side is willing to negotiate. You just keep using straw man arguments to misrepresent what I say. If you had even the most basic understanding of what the threat of a nuclear war means then you wouldn’t be writing the drivel that you are. Enjoy having the last word since you clearly need to.
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.
To quote you, “Where?” Where did I say that?
You’re making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren’t presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you’re trying to attack me personally.
I haven’t said they don’t attack others, you haven’t offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You’ve mentioned a few countries, but I’m sure you know it’s far more nuanced than that. Instead, you’re just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.
Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They’re doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are “selling” the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven’t raped the country’s finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government’s problem.
Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples’ money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin’s estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it’s not Putin’s money. Throw all the young country men’s lives away in Ukraine, they’re not Putin’s people, who cares.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
Again, personal attacks. You’re not making meaningful arguments, you’re just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that’s on topic?
Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them
What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.
Man, I’m always trying. I don’t get it right every time, but I keep trying.
I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.
Are there even downvotes on this site? I kind of miss them for the trolls and what not.
You said “Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true”, perhaps clarify which statement you’re referring to then, because based on the thread that’s the statement I made that you’re disputing.
Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It’s a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.
The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.
You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I’m referencing you start going off about name dropping.
It’s not a personal attack, it’s a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.
I have, go back and read this thread where I’ve presented the facts already.
I’ve explained why it’s false.
Nice straw man there.
I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you’re unwilling to. Either way it’s clear that further discussion is pointless.
I was pretty clear, but let’s compile the comments together:
The rest of your replies seem to be going round in circles. So I’ll distill it down to this:
#What. specifically, is the justification for Russia to invade Ukraine?
I’ll distill it down to this, nobody is justifying anything. Talking about justification is a moral argument, and I find it pointless. What I explained to you in detail are the reasons why the invasion happened. The way to avoid wars is to understand what the motivations of different countries are, what their red lines are, and how to come to compromises that everybody is willing to live with. That’s what diplomacy is and this is what the west is incapable of doing. Evidently this is something you’re having trouble comprehending.
You haven’t given any detail though, you’ve just dropped names and linked to long-winded articles, and when I’ve read those articles I’ve found that they don’t line up with your statements.
I can understand diplomacy and finding a common ground. I’ve been in enough relationships with bad women to know that all too well.
What I see from Russia is a desire to force a decision in their favour, with a bullshit statement along the lines of “well, you didn’t do what we asked, so we’re going to follow through with our threats”. As if that somehow makes the threats themselves justified.
You continue to contradict yourself. You said I haven’t given any detail and that I linked you detailed articles explaining things. Pick a lane. If you want me to magically distill decades of geopolitics for you into a single sentence that’s not going to happen. If you want to understand the subject you’re attempting to debate here then spend the time reading about it instead of arguing on the internet.
The west is likewise trying to force a decision in their own favor. The fact is that Minsk agreements were created between the west, Russia, and Ukraine in order to avoid the current scenario. Then the west and Ukraine proceeded to ignore these agreements, and now neither the west nor Russia are willing to back down.
And once again, the moralizing regarding whether something is justified or not is completely beside the point. That doesn’t actually solve anything and it’s not in any way productive. It’s just a way to make yourself feel righteous.
What all this comes down to is that since the west and Russia can’t come to a diplomatic agreement this will be decided in a hot war. Currently, this war is contained in Ukraine, however it can easily turn into a world war and then into a nuclear holocaust. If you think that’s a good path to follow then by all means keep drumming up continued escalations.
Hah full blown aggression, I hope you’re paid per ascii character.
I’ve told you my lane. My heels are in the sand, and I call out bullshit wherever I see it. You’re just so far on one side you can’t acknowledge that I’m on your side with some things.
I summarised this:
That was basically what your handful of links from Western scholars said.
In saying that, I was far more specific than you have been. If you wish to challenge me on any particular point, I welcome that, particularly as these are points you’re supposed to be presenting.
Please, give me a specific point to mull over. So far it’s been either generic or diverting.
Yes, the Minsk agreements were created to avoid Russia invading more of Ukraine. Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, the rest of the world wanted them to stop, now Russia is continuing their invasion.
Nevermind the fact that the agreement basically broke down completely in 2015, well before Russia mobilised in 2022.
You’re trying to make out that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is some sort of forgone conclusion. It wasn’t. It was an active decision to invade and kill people.
And there we have it, full blown threats. If Russia can’t get its way, if Russia can’t claim the territory it wants, nukes will fly.
I am accutely aware of the threat of nukes, far more than you know. That won’t discourage me from calling out bullshit regardless.
It’s pretty clear that meaningful discussion is not possible here. I’ve explained my position to you repeatedly, and you just continue to regurgitate the same tropes you started with. Nobody is making any threats, I’ve simply explained to you where this all leads if neither side is willing to negotiate. You just keep using straw man arguments to misrepresent what I say. If you had even the most basic understanding of what the threat of a nuclear war means then you wouldn’t be writing the drivel that you are. Enjoy having the last word since you clearly need to.