"He" being me. Nah, I take that into consideration. You can expect those diverging from some "official" line are dissidents of one sort or another, but not necessarily "bought" by the other. Even then, they often are just giving you what is being said by the "official" sources you wouldn't access otherwise. I'm thinking here of the British guy who just translates the Russian media reports, including those critical of the state.
Here is what I recall. Everyone had to have their passport renewed. You could have a Russia passport. You could have a passport from one of your parent's places of birth. You could have a passport where you live.If you were a grad student in the US, according to my friends at the time, you could have a Russian passport unless your had a permanent mailing address on the record with the University some other place. Since shit still was mailed then, most of the students changed their permanent mailing address to their college address.
Remember your claim thar Russia only invaded because the US and NATO forced the Russians to invade? I remember that.
Then your memory sucks, because acknowledging the NATO role in provoking Russian escalation is not the same as "forcing" a completely preventable invasion, speaking of strawmen. The irony is that I give Putin likely more agency than most of the mindless seals clapping for this war to drag on, understanding that he's a little more complex than a genocidal madman, tapping into longstanding Russian historical memory (namely the centuries-old fear of military buildup on their borders that dates back to Napoleon) to achieve his aims, which he's broadly failed at.
All young troops are dumb and unprofessional. All of them.
Not all of them are fed directly into the front lines to allow more experienced soldiers to rest at this pace. This is an experience that most Ukrainian recruits can look forward to and many cannot hack it. Again, this is where real knowledge of war is so vital because the stresses that being on campaign puts on a person are difficult for the layman to comprehend, particularly in such a fraught attritional battle line like what's occurring in Ukraine, and concepts like national pride are furthest from your mind when you're underequipped, underfed and understrength for the role you've been given. Just ask the Germans during the Hundred Days.
Attack noncombatants and destroy civil infrastructure? They're already doing that to.
Russia has a nuclear second strike policy, but that aside, they can do more of that more often the longer the war continues. More homes, more hospitals, more power grids. You and even most Ukrainians might think it's worth the risk, at least for now, but never think for a second that things can't get worse or that things can't escalate further. or that reversals of fortune are possible.
NATO had no role in provoking Russia to invade Ukraine. Full stop. You even deleted your account and ran off to sulk because no one here was buying your claims that this was all NATO's fault and Ukraine just needed to give Russia whatever it wanted.
You start with bullshit and everything that follows is more bullshit.
NATO has been on the Russian border for decades. Inconvenient to your bullshit, but it's true.
Fucking idiot.
I'll take your exensive knowledge of the realities of war and laugh. You do know playing Call of Duty or am RTS is not actual experience, yes?
I said neither "all", nor am I really interested in "fault" as if I was drafting the war guilt clause of Versailles. Ultimately, Putin bears the most responsibility for actually ordering the invasion, but to pretend that the NATO expansions of the 90s and 00s didn't greatly inflame tensions with the Russian state is just silly, particularly when Western diplomats were well aware of the red lines they were crossing, as their cables clearly indicated.
I've noticed this pattern with you: interpret my arguments in the least charitable way possible, all the while adding little qualifiers that completely changes their meaning to suit your narrative. Yet when it comes to the articles that support my point, all of a sudden you become an ardent literallist and cannot understand nuance or implied action or events, let alone analyze intangible objectives, motivations or goals.
So your going to maintain that NATO is at fault. NATO crossed Russian red lines 30 years ago and Russia had no choice but to invade Ukraine now. Russia invaded a non NATO state, one with no near or even mid term prospects of even asking to join NATO, let alone be accepted, because Russia is mad at NATO and going to send a message.
Put all the spin on it you want. Russia is engaged in pure imperialism right now. Normally your against imperialism, you even rail against imperialism that doesn't actually happen like NATO imperialism. Why the change of heart in this case? Why is this imperialism ok?
That said, let's look at your arguments and the framing. This is a world changing war right? I asked how because it's not. It might change Europe, but you like to point out that europe usnt the workd. It might change whos sitting at tge high stakes table for geopolitics, but that changes all the time. The Russians are going to escalate it, right? I pointed out that there's only one way to escalate and it's the way you swear can't happen because Russia promised to not use nukes.
There's the problem. You string words together and either don't know what they mean or are hoping the meaning gets lost in the wall of text word salad and you can claim they mean something else.
You don't post articles that support your point. You read a headline and post what you think is a gotcha that the actual article always undermines.
I treat your arguments as bad faith because you make arguments in bad faith. If they merited a charitable reading, I would read them charitably. That's on you and your years of bad faith arguments. I will continue to poke holes in your bulkshit as I see it happen.
you on the other hand twist meanings, assign stances I don't have, seem completely incapable of subtlety or nuance (both quite bad when talking about foreign affairs) and frankly, you're rather abusive. I don't think you actually read my articles either, based on these responses. Certainly that Counterpunch article is far too long for you to have digested in that time.
But ultimately, you do have the state of affairs you want. The war's escalating, new materiel is on its way to the front lines, Russia's in a grinding war of attrition that will bog it down (at least in the short term). You should be pleased.
Again, you're talking about "fault". I say "responsibility" very deliberately, it implies direct cause and effects for various actions rather than try to assign moral culpability that only only has rhetorical or polemic use. As for imperialism, it's actually because I abhor it that I'd like this war to come to an end sooner rather than potentially A) destabilizing Ukraine entirely and B) on the other end, perhaps resulting in an even bigger revanchist taking power in Russia. Russia's broadly failed in it's
Again, you're big on projection. I'm actually very measured and precise with what I say. I'll admit that this space is limited (along with my time) so I don't say everything I'd like or address every point you toss out, but
And yet you still can't answer a simple question about your claims. You have to move on and hope it gets lost on the noise.
As for the Russian red lines ad justification? Do you think you're the first one to use that one? It's not new. It's not original. It's still bullshit.
Again, using words that I don't use very deliberately. There's no "justifying" this invasion. What there is is explanations as to how things got to this point. Because without understanding it, there's no preventing it from happening again in the future (or frankly resolving the current crisis right now).
And make no mistake, this current state of affairs is a massive gamble that could end very badly. The rhetoric has been "Ukraine is winning!" ever since the Kherson offensive in September. But what happens if their next offensive fails? Or Russia's succeeds? Double down with more weapons? That's the answer for some.
"but your solution is to give Russia whatever it wants"
And again, for somebody who complains about strawmen, you sure set up a lot of 'em.
I already explained how this escalates. More infrastructure destruction, more potential war crimes, more troops committed by Russia. Nuclear threat looms in the background.
Are you really this stupid? Russia is already committing war crimes and destroying civil infrastructure. Continuing to do that is not an escalation.
As for tue strawman? You consistently insist Russia has to have Crimea. Mostly because they want it. They have to have the entire Donbas region. Mostly because they want it. Ukraine has to give that territory to Russia or else this can't end.
You've been called out on the appeasement multiple times by multiple others. Are you pretending that's not what you really meant the whole time?
"He" being me. Nah, I take that into consideration. You can expect those diverging from some "official" line are dissidents of one sort or another, but not necessarily "bought" by the other. Even then, they often are just giving you what is being said by the "official" sources you wouldn't access otherwise. I'm thinking here of the British guy who just translates the Russian media reports, including those critical of the state.
Could they? I don't recall any talk of a split in what was then the Ukrainianin SSR back in 1991-92 other than along the existing boundaries.
Here is what I recall. Everyone had to have their passport renewed. You could have a Russia passport. You could have a passport from one of your parent's places of birth. You could have a passport where you live.If you were a grad student in the US, according to my friends at the time, you could have a Russian passport unless your had a permanent mailing address on the record with the University some other place. Since shit still was mailed then, most of the students changed their permanent mailing address to their college address.
TBF there are 2 sides to the question "Should Russia invade and steal Ukraine's land?"
They are NO! and FUCK NO!
Remember your claim thar Russia only invaded because the US and NATO forced the Russians to invade? I remember that.
Then your memory sucks, because acknowledging the NATO role in provoking Russian escalation is not the same as "forcing" a completely preventable invasion, speaking of strawmen. The irony is that I give Putin likely more agency than most of the mindless seals clapping for this war to drag on, understanding that he's a little more complex than a genocidal madman, tapping into longstanding Russian historical memory (namely the centuries-old fear of military buildup on their borders that dates back to Napoleon) to achieve his aims, which he's broadly failed at.
All young troops are dumb and unprofessional. All of them.
Not all of them are fed directly into the front lines to allow more experienced soldiers to rest at this pace. This is an experience that most Ukrainian recruits can look forward to and many cannot hack it. Again, this is where real knowledge of war is so vital because the stresses that being on campaign puts on a person are difficult for the layman to comprehend, particularly in such a fraught attritional battle line like what's occurring in Ukraine, and concepts like national pride are furthest from your mind when you're underequipped, underfed and understrength for the role you've been given. Just ask the Germans during the Hundred Days.
Attack noncombatants and destroy civil infrastructure? They're already doing that to.
Russia has a nuclear second strike policy, but that aside, they can do more of that more often the longer the war continues. More homes, more hospitals, more power grids. You and even most Ukrainians might think it's worth the risk, at least for now, but never think for a second that things can't get worse or that things can't escalate further. or that reversals of fortune are possible.
NATO had no role in provoking Russia to invade Ukraine. Full stop. You even deleted your account and ran off to sulk because no one here was buying your claims that this was all NATO's fault and Ukraine just needed to give Russia whatever it wanted.
You start with bullshit and everything that follows is more bullshit.
NATO has been on the Russian border for decades. Inconvenient to your bullshit, but it's true.
Fucking idiot.
I'll take your exensive knowledge of the realities of war and laugh. You do know playing Call of Duty or am RTS is not actual experience, yes?
I was going to ask you the same thing.
I said neither "all", nor am I really interested in "fault" as if I was drafting the war guilt clause of Versailles. Ultimately, Putin bears the most responsibility for actually ordering the invasion, but to pretend that the NATO expansions of the 90s and 00s didn't greatly inflame tensions with the Russian state is just silly, particularly when Western diplomats were well aware of the red lines they were crossing, as their cables clearly indicated.
I've noticed this pattern with you: interpret my arguments in the least charitable way possible, all the while adding little qualifiers that completely changes their meaning to suit your narrative. Yet when it comes to the articles that support my point, all of a sudden you become an ardent literallist and cannot understand nuance or implied action or events, let alone analyze intangible objectives, motivations or goals.
Almost like you're a bad faith actor....
So your going to maintain that NATO is at fault. NATO crossed Russian red lines 30 years ago and Russia had no choice but to invade Ukraine now. Russia invaded a non NATO state, one with no near or even mid term prospects of even asking to join NATO, let alone be accepted, because Russia is mad at NATO and going to send a message.
Put all the spin on it you want. Russia is engaged in pure imperialism right now. Normally your against imperialism, you even rail against imperialism that doesn't actually happen like NATO imperialism. Why the change of heart in this case? Why is this imperialism ok?
That said, let's look at your arguments and the framing. This is a world changing war right? I asked how because it's not. It might change Europe, but you like to point out that europe usnt the workd. It might change whos sitting at tge high stakes table for geopolitics, but that changes all the time. The Russians are going to escalate it, right? I pointed out that there's only one way to escalate and it's the way you swear can't happen because Russia promised to not use nukes.
There's the problem. You string words together and either don't know what they mean or are hoping the meaning gets lost in the wall of text word salad and you can claim they mean something else.
You don't post articles that support your point. You read a headline and post what you think is a gotcha that the actual article always undermines.
I treat your arguments as bad faith because you make arguments in bad faith. If they merited a charitable reading, I would read them charitably. That's on you and your years of bad faith arguments. I will continue to poke holes in your bulkshit as I see it happen.
(continued due to misclick)
you on the other hand twist meanings, assign stances I don't have, seem completely incapable of subtlety or nuance (both quite bad when talking about foreign affairs) and frankly, you're rather abusive. I don't think you actually read my articles either, based on these responses. Certainly that Counterpunch article is far too long for you to have digested in that time.
But ultimately, you do have the state of affairs you want. The war's escalating, new materiel is on its way to the front lines, Russia's in a grinding war of attrition that will bog it down (at least in the short term). You should be pleased.
Again, you're talking about "fault". I say "responsibility" very deliberately, it implies direct cause and effects for various actions rather than try to assign moral culpability that only only has rhetorical or polemic use. As for imperialism, it's actually because I abhor it that I'd like this war to come to an end sooner rather than potentially A) destabilizing Ukraine entirely and B) on the other end, perhaps resulting in an even bigger revanchist taking power in Russia. Russia's broadly failed in it's
Again, you're big on projection. I'm actually very measured and precise with what I say. I'll admit that this space is limited (along with my time) so I don't say everything I'd like or address every point you toss out, but
And yet you still can't answer a simple question about your claims. You have to move on and hope it gets lost on the noise.
As for the Russian red lines ad justification? Do you think you're the first one to use that one? It's not new. It's not original. It's still bullshit.
Again, using words that I don't use very deliberately. There's no "justifying" this invasion. What there is is explanations as to how things got to this point. Because without understanding it, there's no preventing it from happening again in the future (or frankly resolving the current crisis right now).
And make no mistake, this current state of affairs is a massive gamble that could end very badly. The rhetoric has been "Ukraine is winning!" ever since the Kherson offensive in September. But what happens if their next offensive fails? Or Russia's succeeds? Double down with more weapons? That's the answer for some.
https://twitter.com/BMarche...
Once again. Russia has already lost. Not a single stated goal has been or can be achieved. They are prolonging their own failure.
So are you ever going to get around to explaining how this escalates?
It's an unjustifiable war, but your solution is to give Russia whatever it wants. There's a disconnect in your thinking
"but your solution is to give Russia whatever it wants"
And again, for somebody who complains about strawmen, you sure set up a lot of 'em.
I already explained how this escalates. More infrastructure destruction, more potential war crimes, more troops committed by Russia. Nuclear threat looms in the background.
Are you really this stupid? Russia is already committing war crimes and destroying civil infrastructure. Continuing to do that is not an escalation.
As for tue strawman? You consistently insist Russia has to have Crimea. Mostly because they want it. They have to have the entire Donbas region. Mostly because they want it. Ukraine has to give that territory to Russia or else this can't end.
You've been called out on the appeasement multiple times by multiple others. Are you pretending that's not what you really meant the whole time?
Global south is 10% of the world population not 80%