[W:1][W:11][W:368] Russia invades Ukraine: Live Thread

[Binary_Digit]

Again, who is using this as an excuse? Taking about geopolitics and examining ideas is not excuse making. I notice only one person here that is using that to excuse Russia, the rest of the commentary seem like an honest tabling of hypotheticals and scenarios. Understanding how we got here is part of working toward a stronger future with greater peace. The world isn't so black and white as many seem to think.

1. Putin used it as an excuse.
2. Putin's lap dogs parrot the excuse to divert attention away from the undeniable fact that Putin has waged an unjustified war of aggression.
3. A cursory examination of history shows that the excuse is bullshit. NATO was never going to be an aggressive threat to Russia. It was only a threat to his expansionist goals of stealing independent countries for himself and his billionaire oligarchs.

 

[MaryP]

Russia says China refuses to supply aircraft parts after sanctions

China has refused to supply Russian airlines with aircraft parts, an official at Russia's aviation authority was quoted by Russian news agencies as saying on Thursday, after Boeing and Airbus halted supply of components.

www.reuters.com

Good

That sounds pretty serious. Commercial planes need constant maintenance, don't they?

 

[Slartibartfast]

That sounds pretty serious. Commercial planes need constant maintenance, don't they?

Yep.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Prices of TVs, vacuums, and cars soared by as much as 17% in Russia in the last week, as the Kremlin calls inflation a 'shocking external impact on our economy'

The crash of the Russian Ruble, kicked off by Western sanctions, is leading to higher prices for the average consumer.

www.businessinsider.com

I mean, given the hatred of American workers by America’s government and purposeful inflation being inflicted upon them, it makes perfect sense to me that when our government imposes higher prices on Americans without a second thought, that they would do it to Russians just as easily.

 

[reinaert]

I find this in extremely poor taste. The other poster has already said he isn't making an excuse for Russian invasion, but is discussing the dynamics and geopolitics of the situation and hypothesized how we got here. I don't see anyone here that says Russia is in the right and that there is some defensible position here (scratch that, EMofSeattle does). Regardless, nothing happens in a vacuum, you're smart, and I know you realize that. Just debate and counter point the guy with reasonable alternatives, this isn't a trolling site, it's a debate site. Show why his line of reasoning is wrong without strawmanning his argument as defending Russia, that's not how I read it at all.

This isn't a straw man. It's an analogy. The analogy illustrates the flaw in the base logic, which in this case is a false syllogism looping in a tautology.

Every time someone claims 'provocation' s/he leaps from presumed effect back to the declaration of cause; s/he does not show the chain of causation.

Does this help?

 

[Rexedgar]

Just to let you know how serious we are taking it here in Sweden. The military has now started weekly pressconferences that will be live broadcasted in the 2 most watched channels...

What topics were covered in the most recent presser?

 

[Nomad4Ever]

The US doesn't have the authority abolish NATO, and Russia has proven itself to be untrustworthy under Putin.

Completely true. At this point it's the smaller European nations that care the most about NATO. Even if the US left NATO it certainly wouldn't dissolve the alliance.

 

[fireflygmf]

1. Putin used it as an excuse.
2. Putin's lap dogs parrot the excuse to divert attention away from the undeniable fact that Putin has waged an unjustified war of aggression.
3. A cursory examination of history shows that the excuse is bullshit. NATO was never going to be an aggressive threat to Russia. It was only a threat to his expansionist goals of stealing independent countries for himself and his billionaire oligarchs.

Well that's his problem. He needs to answer for excuse-making, he needs to account for any unjustified actions. It doesn't make any questions or commentary taboo to examine by throwing ideas around, this is just open discourse and curiousity. I don't want to be in a position where we are stifling honest debate on a debate forum...

This isn't really directed at you by the way. I don't find you are one of the offenders at ridiculing people. You just happened to be the latest to reply so I quoted you. I don't mean to personally direct these comments at you, hope you understand.

 

[watsup]

I mean, given the hatred of American workers by America’s government and purposeful inflation being inflicted upon them, it makes perfect sense to me that when our government imposes higher prices on Americans without a second thought, that they would do it to Russians just as easily.

You do know that this is all on Putin’s decision to brutally invade an independent country, right?

 

[reinaert]

Here's the rub, the impeachment by the Ukrainian parliament was illegal because it failed to follow the constitutionally prescribed methods and steps.

Now you take refuge in rigid legalism; when it comes to Russian artillery, bombs and strikes, it's all grey area this and on the other hand that.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Just like NATO was a peaceful and noninvolved party in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.

If responding to stop ethnic cleansing, implementing UN Security Council Resolutions to stop crimes against humanity, and defending fellow member nations who've just been attacked constitute NATO aggression to you, then your opinions are simply worthless to anyone with a functioning brain.

 

[Cardinal]

Prices of TVs, vacuums, and cars soared by as much as 17% in Russia in the last week, as the Kremlin calls inflation a 'shocking external impact on our economy'

The crash of the Russian Ruble, kicked off by Western sanctions, is leading to higher prices for the average consumer.

www.businessinsider.com

I never feel good when I see impacts of sanctions and businesses pulling out hitting regular people. This may be completely naive, but I wish they could be more surgically targeted at oligarchs and Putin’s security members (the latter is the real power).

 

[Slartibartfast]

I never feel good when I see impacts of sanctions and businesses pulling out hitting regular people. This may be completely naive, but I wish they could be more surgically targeted at oligarchs and Putin’s security members (the latter is the real power).

I agree, these people are victims of Putin as well.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If responding to stop ethnic cleansing, implementing UN Security Council Resolutions to stop crimes against humanity, and defending fellow member nations who've just been attacked constitute NATO aggression to you, then your opinions are simply worthless to anyone with a functioning brain.

Can you tell me who was given the death penalty for targeting civilian cities with nuclear weapons? You know the answer to that question, and that’s why the justification you gave us crap.

And it’s really odd that no one ever talks about ethnic cleansing when Ukraine or Georgia are doing it. Or at least have said they want to do it.

 

[fireflygmf]

This isn't a straw man. It's an analogy. The analogy illustrates the flaw in the base logic, which in this case is a false syllogism looping in a tautology.

Every time someone claims 'provocation' s/he leaps from presumed effect back to the declaration of cause; s/he does not show the chain of causation.

Does this help?

The analogy you offered is that examining motivation from Russia's side is equivalent of defending McVeigh's actions. This is nonsense, and responding to a point that isn't made, hence a strawman.

Who, other than EMNofSeattle, is saying that this excuses Russia? I don't see anyone on Russia's side except for him. All the other people are just tabling alternate scenarios and attempting to reason how we all got here, realizing that the world is connected. I see your responses as an attempt at ridicule to stifle their line of questioning and avoid engagement into any examination of their claims. Examining these claims doesn't mean they are "for Russia" nor does it mean they "excuse Russia", NOR does it mean they "defend Russia".

 

[reinaert]

I never feel good when I see impacts of sanctions and businesses pulling out hitting regular people. This may be completely naive, but I wish they could be more surgically targeted at oligarchs and Putin’s security members (the latter is the real power).

I think the kind of surgical targeting that works is banned by two executive orders. It might be that the awful 2002 AUMF could be creatively reinterpreted again, because this is already the worst timeline, but I don't know.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I never feel good when I see impacts of sanctions and businesses pulling out hitting regular people. This may be completely naive, but I wish they could be more surgically targeted at oligarchs and Putin’s security members (the latter is the real power).

Yeah, and that's why I'm generally against sanctions. For example, our sanctions on Cuba.

That said, in this case it is certainly preferable to actually declaring war on Russia. We do have sanctions that target the oligarchs, but the ones aimed at hindering the Russian economy to make it as expensive as possible to continue to war will, inevitably, also hurt civilians.

However, seeing as civilians are being literally shelled and killed in Ukraine I think the sanctions are justifiable and if they can convince Russia to end the war sooner are far less harmful than doing so with military force.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Well that's his problem. He needs to answer for excuse-making, he needs to account for any unjustified actions. It doesn't make any questions or commentary taboo to examine by throwing ideas around, this is just open discourse and curiousity. I don't want to be in a position where we are stifling honest debate on a debate forum...

This isn't really directed at you by the way. I don't find you are one of the offenders at ridiculing people. You just happened to be the latest to reply so I quoted you. I don't mean to personally direct these comments at you, hope you understand.

It's one thing to point out that Putin claimed a threat to Russian security. That's a fact, and related questions and commentary are not inappropriate.

But it's entirely another to try and argue in Putin's favor that he actually was provoked, when it simply doesn't stand on its own merits based on the truth.

 

[Juks]

What topics were covered in the most recent presser?

You mean in connection to the war? The ,meeting in Turkey, the bombing of the maternity hospital, and that the government is upping the estimates for military spendings.

I believe there are three things that are essential to the Swedish governments concerns:

1. The 6 disembarking warships that was outside Gotland before the war in the Ukraine started.
2. The Russian combat aircraft that violated Swedish airspace a week or so ago
3. A hack of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency last week.

I think the daily press conferences is to prevent misinformation campaigns from Russia and to keep the initiative and hold on the information flow

 

[reinaert]

The analogy you offered is that examining motivation from Russia's side is equivalent of defending McVeigh's actions. This is nonsense, and responding to a point that isn't made, hence a strawman.

Who, other than EMNofSeattle, is saying that this excuses Russia? I don't see anyone on Russia's side except for him. All the other people are just tabling alternate scenarios and attempting to reason how we all got here, realizing that the world is connected. I see your responses as an attempt at ridicule to stifle their line of questioning and avoid engagement into any examination of their claims. Examining these claims doesn't mean they are "for Russia" nor does it mean they "excuse Russia", NOR does it mean they "defend Russia".

I think you are reading too broadly. When McVeigh was caught, he stated in his plain boots way that he was provoked. Eric Rudolph made similar arguments. As do current white nationalists.

They claim their acts of aggression were actually them responding defensively to provocation.

If you don't get the reference, I don't know what further I can illustrate.

 

[Rexedgar]

You mean in connection to the war? The ,meeting in Turkey, the bombing of the maternity hospital, and that the government is upping the estimates for military spendings.

I believe there are three things that are essential to the Swedish governments concerns:

1. The 6 disembarking warships that was outside Gotland before the war in the Ukraine started.
2. The Russian combat aircraft that violated Swedish airspace a week or so ago
3. A hack of the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency last week.

I think the daily press conferences is to prevent misinformation campaigns from Russia and to keep the initiative and hold on the information flow

Is it daily or weekly? The initial post said “weekly.”

 

[Centrist]

 

[reinaert]

It's one thing to point out that Putin claimed a threat to Russian security. That's a fact, and related questions and commentary are not inappropriate.

But it's entirely another to try and argue in Putin's favor that he actually was provoked, when it simply doesn't stand on its own merits based on the truth.

Precisely. A better summation.

It's true that Putin says he was provoked. It's not true, from that assertion alone, that anything done near Russia made Russia invade Georgia, send troops to Moldova, threaten Finland, or invade Ukraine.

In fact, going back to at least 1997, Putin and his theorists have outlining their expansionist doctrine for reconquering everything he, Dugin and others believe is the Russkiy Mir.

This is revanchism, and it always postures as an assailed weakness.

 

[fireflygmf]

I think you are reading too broadly. When McVeigh was caught, he stated in his plain boots way that he was provoked. Eric Rudolph made similar arguments. As do current white nationalists.

They claim their acts of aggression were actually them responding defensively to provocation.

If you don't get the reference, I don't know what further I can illustrate.

I certainly get the reference, but it is being used to scold the wrong people.

It is an analogy for Russia's claimed position. They claimed provocation and see this as an act of defense. That's their claim, and your application as an analogy holds in that context.

I was irked when you applied this analogy to those who are only offering an inspection of those claims. Trying to get to the root of the matter, examining the details and offering scenarios. To apply this label to them (that they are equivalent to McVeigh defenders) is not a good faith argument, in my opinion.

It might be my involvement with the sciences my entire life, but the purpose of debate (to me) is to test our arguments and see what makes sense. what doesn't, and get a little closer to a model of reality using that method. I feel like it isn't seen this way here, it more like looking for a slam dunk on an opponent just to "win", rather than get anything constructive out of the whole exchange.

 

[ChickenTendies]

Again, NATO didn't propose anything, Ukraine was beginning talks about joining.

If Russia wanted to negotiate they negotiate with Ukraine, not NATO. And they sort of tried to, but their "diplomacy" amounted to little more than "don't join NATO or we will attack you". Which isn't really a great tactic when you are trying to convince a country to join a defensive alliance that would protect them from you.

And I believe that instead of unequivocally rejecting Putin's demands, they should've pressured Ukraine to accept neutrality status to prevent this. That was the only option to prevent this war. Ukraine wasn't even open to accepting Putin's demands because they believed he was bluffing.