YARS has been loaded.

[oneworld2]

Again you make the perfect the enemy of the good and that is sad,

"The good" don't support tyrants for personal gain. Nor do they illegally invade/attack other peoples countries more regularly that Russia does. They don't overthrow democratically elected govts and support the authoritarians they replace them with. They don't illegally occupy the territory of another state and use their base on it as a mass torture chamber. The lists just go on and on and you appear to be in denial of them.

You can have the last say here because there is no debate with people who want to deny reality so as to hang on to beliefs that are, quite frankly, ridiculous

 

[samiam5211]

It's to do with self interest and that is what the record shows is the real world as far as US foreign policy is concerned.

Yes, governments act in their own self-interest, so?

 

[oneworld2]

Yes, governments act in their own self-interest, so?

So notions of good intent and principled decision making come to naught.

The list I supplied, that you ignored, undermines your previous assertions and so we can just say that all of these self proclaimed western virtues have no bearing on foreign policy and have done with it.

 

[iguanaman]

"The good" don't support tyrants for personal gain. Nor do they illegally invade/attack other peoples countries more regularly that Russia does. They don't overthrow democratically elected govts and support the authoritarians they replace them with. They don't illegally occupy the territory of another state and use their base on it as a mass torture chamber. The lists just go on and on and you appear to be in denial of them.

You can have the last say here because there is no debate with people who want to deny reality so as to hang on to beliefs that are, quite frankly, ridiculous

We have not taken one country by force and kept it since the 1800's. That is reality and you are blind to it. But no we are not perfect, no one is. Except Trump of course. Regardless of our past mistakes, our support of Ukraine is the most clear cut example of good fighting evil since WWII. Putin is the first leader to invade a european country since Hitler. He acts and talks more like Hitler every day.

Are Putin’s views fascist?​

The Russian leader often evokes Ivan Ilyin, a philosopher who praised Mussolini and Hitler, but analysts are divided on Putin’s own ideology.

The Kremlin’s master concluded one of his most fateful addresses with a quote from a philosopher barely known outside Russia.
“I’d like to end my speech with the words of a true Russian patriot, Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin, ‘If I consider Russia my motherland, it means that I love, contemplate and think the Russian way, I sing and speak Russian’,” Russian President Vladimir Putin told politicians on September 30.
The quote seemed to befit the occasion – Putin was announcing the annexation of four Ukrainian regions as an effort to consolidate Russians around his faltering war.
For years, Putin has been quoting, lionising and promoting Ilyin, who was born in tsarist Russia in 1883 and died in post-WWII Switzerland in 1954.
But he failed to mention Ilyin’s political preferences and ideological trajectory.

Some scholars point out that Ilyin’s works influenced Putin’s push to transform Russia’s post-perestroika flawed yet functioning democracy into a bellwether of militant neoconservatism that started this century’s bloodiest war in Europe.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/10/26/how-fascist-are-putins-views

 

[samiam5211]

So notions of good intent and principled decision making come to naught.

The list I supplied, that you ignored, undermines your previous assertions and so we can just say that all of these self proclaimed western virtues have no bearing on foreign policy and have done with it.

Good intentions certainly factor in, but a government's purpose is to serve it's interests.

Any government that puts principles and good intentions above it's own interests won't exist for long.

 

[oneworld2]

Good intentions certainly factor in, but a government's purpose is to serve it's interests.

Any government that puts principles and good intentions above it's own interests won't exist for long.

So " good intentions, factor in" to the overthrow of democrats and the installation and support for the authoritarians the West replaces them with?

 

[Chagos]

Because they want the USA dragged into any war they may have. A big brother to protect them.
Note:
The history of Eastern Europe is a history of changing boarders.

As I have said previous, what if the Soviet Union had expanded instead of NATO?
That would not be a threat?

Of course it would be. So then why is an expansion of NATO not a threat to NATO?
Poland for example was under the Soviet Umbella, now it is under ours. You really think this is not a threat if you are Russian? Especially when Russia was clear that they needed Poland as a buffer between the west. Now we want Ukraine too?

You folks are just not objective, not looking at things nuterally or from a Russian perspective.

Poland for example was under the Soviet Umbella,

Errrhhh.................no!

It was under the Russian knout.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

As I have said previous, what if the Soviet Union had expanded instead of NATO? That would not be a threat?

The reason why the Soviet Union was a threat was because it was a communist government that sought to destroy capitalist societies. If capitalist societies had collapsed and become quasi-communist countries then this hypothetical expansion of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union wouldn't have been as much of a threat to former capitalist countries. But that's not what happened. What happened was that the political ideology of communist was a total and complete failure and the countries that formed the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact could no longer meet the basic needs of their citizens and then collapsed.

Of course it would be. So then why is an expansion of NATO not a threat to NATO? Poland for example was under the Soviet Umbella, now it is under ours. You really think this is not a threat if you are Russian? Especially when Russia was clear that they needed Poland as a buffer between the west. Now we want Ukraine too?

The expansion of NATO represents only a relative decrease in geopolitical power of Russia. And the expansion of NATO, because it is a defensive military alliance, can only be perceived as a threat to Russia if you accept the idea that Russia will one day wage an offensive war against NATO-member countries

You folks are just not objective, not looking at things nuterally or from a Russian perspective.

Russia's perspective is that the expansion of NATO makes Russia less powerful, and this is true, but Russia has no right to be powerful, to begin with. Russia is not entitled to a sphere of influence. No country is entitled to a sphere of influence. This perception that Russia has that it has decreased geopolitical power because of an expanding NATO alliance, while uncomfortable for Russia, is not an adequate Casus Belli to invade Ukraine.

The short answer is that Putin's anger at Russia's loss of power or status simply does not matter, and we should not worry ourselves that Putin is angry that his country is no longer a superpower, or is a shadow of its former self. Our collective response to Putin's rants about Russia's "right" to be a great, superpower should be as follows: "Boo ****ing hoo. Cry some more you whiny little bitch."

 

[lwf]

So notions of good intent and principled decision making come to naught.

The list I supplied, that you ignored, undermines your previous assertions and so we can just say that all of these self proclaimed western virtues have no bearing on foreign policy and have done with it.

That bad decisions have been made by a country doesn't mean that good decisions therefore aren't made by that country.

 

[oneworld2]

That bad decisions have been made by a country doesn't mean that good decisions therefore aren't made by that country.

And you take that position all of the time, right?

The list I gave, which was only partial anyhow, shows that the US, like all others, will do what's best for its own interests , not necessarily what the optimum moral position is. That's just the spin they put on everything they do which is repeated by and defended by many Americans as an incontestable truth.

That's this exchange in a nutshell and what we see in virtually every thread in this sub forum.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The list I gave, which was only partial anyhow, shows that the US, like all others, will do what's best for its own interests , not necessarily what the optimum moral position is.

You're correct. So what?

 

[oneworld2]

You're correct. So what?

So, when other countries do what's best for them, what they deem to be in their best interests, if our lot disagree or are believed to be on the receiving end of it, they start with all of the moral/idealistic bs in a bid to demonize them and people like you run with it and call everyone else out as this or that apologist. That's what.

 

[lwf]

And you take that position all of the time, right?

The list I gave, which was only partial anyhow, shows that the US, like all others, will do what's best for its own interests , not necessarily what the optimum moral position is. That's just the spin they put on everything they do which is repeated by and defended by many Americans as an incontestable truth.

That's this exchange in a nutshell and what we see in virtually every thread in this sub forum.

I do take that position all of the time. That immoral decisions have been made by a person or entity doesn't mean that moral decisions are therefore never made by that person or entity. That includes Russia too.

Opponents to Russia's invasion of Ukraine are judging Russia's decision to invade Ukraine as immoral. Russian apologists are interpreting this (whether due to hypersensitivity or deliberate deception) as a moral judgment against Russia itself being an immoral country. They then point out immoral decisions made by the US and NATO and apply this judgment of immorality to those countries as a sort of "tit for tat."

All countries make immoral decisions. That doesn't make the people who live there immoral, nor does it mean that they cannot judge an immoral decision when they see one. Russia is not an immoral country. But it made an immoral decision. Pointing out other immoral decisions does not justify Russia's immoral decision, nor does it mean that members of a country that made an immoral decision are hypocrites in pointing out Russia's immoral decision.

 

[samiam5211]

So " good intentions, factor in" to the overthrow of democrats and the installation and support for the authoritarians the West replaces them with?

Sometimes.

 

[oneworld2]

I do take that position all of the time. That immoral decisions have been made by a person or entity doesn't mean that moral decisions are therefore never made by that person or entity. That includes Russia too.

The point being that any moral decision was incidental to, useful as a fig leaf for ,what is in fact just self interest all along

Let's see how universal your terminology is in the stuff below? Terminology being somewhat useful as a determiner of how objective those using it are, imo.

Opponents to Russia's invasion of Ukraine are judging Russia's decision to invade Ukraine as immoral. Russian apologists are interpreting this (whether due to hypersensitivity or deliberate deception) as a moral judgment against Russia itself being an immoral country. They then point out immoral decisions made by the US and NATO and apply this judgment of immorality to those countries as a sort of "tit for tat."

The first highlighted? I could say "apologists for US/NATO warmongering?"

The second highlighted? "Opponents of US/NATO warmongering?"

See terminology is giving you away as anything but willing to apply the same standards. And yes, I am sometimes guilty of it too but you have to admit, it is your own side that is constantly resorting to this type of terminological baiting, as you have here again?

Look at the two choices you give for their position. They are either " hypersensitive" or engaged in " deliberate deception" ? No, they could just be way more consistent in both the use of terminology and in applying the same standards to all parties.

I highlighted the above because that is what I have seen the most of here and it virtually always starts from your side of the fence.

And, it is seen as a "moral judgement" of Russia and Russian actions because that's exactly what it is. And if you haven't seen the diatribes about Russia and Russians here being immoral/backward etc etc you really haven't been reading this properly.

The pointing out of our own illegal/immoral actions is brought up because people want all sorts of different consequences brought to bear on only the Russian side. Sanctions. Where were the sanctions to get the US from ending its illegal/immoral military invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan? People here can't even refer to them as crimes even now?

Where was the" kick the USA off the UNSC " outcry? The calls for " war reparations" to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc The calls for Bush and co to be sent to the Hague, trialled and sentenced to death for their actions in those places?

All countries make immoral decisions. That doesn't make the people who live there immoral, nor does it mean that they cannot judge an immoral decision when they see one. Russia is not an immoral country. But it made an immoral decision. Pointing out other immoral decisions does not justify Russia's immoral decision, nor does it mean that members of a country that made an immoral decision are hypocrites in pointing out Russia's immoral decision.

I never said the actions of states by definition are instructive of the people in the country but I think calling people out as hypocrites for the above and many other things is a legitimate response to their commentary and an obvious reaction to the constant smearing they also engage in.

 

[oneworld2]

Sometimes.

 

[Hamish Howl]

So, when other countries do what's best for them, what they deem to be in their best interests, if our lot disagree or are believed to be on the receiving end of it, they start with all of the moral/idealistic bs in a bid to demonize them and people like you run with it and call everyone else out as this or that apologist. That's what.

All that matters in this situation occurs on the battlefield. Nobody cares whether or not you think it is moral.

 

[Antiwar]

The only thing Russia has to do to avoid nuclear war with NATO is to not invade or attack NATO-member countries.

It's not a big ask.

Is that a promise or a threat?

This US/NATO position continues to give P**** power. Not only are nuclear weapons utterly stupid, but they're also preventing the US from directly engaging in this popular war.

 

[Antiwar]

All that matters in this situation occurs on the battlefield. Nobody cares whether or not you think it is moral.

What does that mean?

 

[lwf]

The point being that any moral decision was incidental to, useful as a fig leaf for ,what is in fact just self interest all along

Let's see how universal your terminology is in the stuff below? Terminology being somewhat useful as a determiner of how objective those using it are, imo.




The first highlighted? I could say "apologists for US/NATO warmongering?"

The second highlighted? "Opponents of US/NATO warmongering?"

See terminology is giving you away as anything but willing to apply the same standards. And yes, I am sometimes guilty of it too but you have to admit, it is your own side that is constantly resorting to this type of terminological baiting, as you have here again?

Look at the two choices you give for their position. They are either " hypersensitive" or engaged in " deliberate deception" ? No, they could just be way more consistent in both the use of terminology and in applying the same standards to all parties.

I highlighted the above because that is what I have seen the most of here and it virtually always starts from your side of the fence.

And, it is seen as a "moral judgement" of Russia and Russian actions because that's exactly what it is. And if you haven't seen the diatribes about Russia and Russians here being immoral/backward etc etc you really haven't been reading this properly.

The pointing out of our own illegal/immoral actions is brought up because people want all sorts of different consequences brought to bear on only the Russian side. Sanctions. Where were the sanctions to get the US from ending its illegal/immoral military invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan? People here can't even refer to them as crimes even now?

Where was the" kick the USA off the UNSC " outcry? The calls for " war reparations" to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya etc etc The calls for Bush and co to be sent to the Hague, trialled and sentenced to death for their actions in those places?

I never said the actions of states by definition are instructive of the people in the country but I think calling people out as hypocrites for the above and many other things is a legitimate response to their commentary and an obvious reaction to the constant smearing they also engage in.

The same standards should be applied. The moral outrage that belongs to all of the terrible and unjust things the US has done in the past also applies to what Russia is doing right now in Ukraine before our very eyes. Don't you agree?

No amount of western hypocrisy, however glaring, can absolve Russia of a single crime it is committing in Ukraine, much less all of them.

 

[Hamish Howl]

What does that mean?

It means neither side is going to go to the bargaining table until they have no choice whatsoever.

And we're going to keep handing goodies to the Ukraine, because it is in our interests to do so.

 

[Cordelier]

Yars has been put on combat duty. Last week it was placed in a silo so its ready to fire. It can hit anywhere in the USA. It carries 7 war heads each in 12 times more powerful than Hiroshima.

Why have they done this? Because the USA has decided to send more weapons to Ukraine that can thrawt Russia.

Putin has been very strategic and calculated. He believes in hitting hard and daring you to strike back.

He has not backed down at all in this encounter. He won't now.

Just an FYI, nuclear war is creeping towards us.

If you live in NYC, DC or LA, you are at ground zero.

If you take medications, I hope you don't need them to not suffer or to stay alive.

I beat Yars 40 years ago.



It wasn't so tough.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Is that a promise or a threat?

All the people who contribute to the forum who hate the United States, hate the West, hate European countries, hate NATO-member countries, hate Western civilization, hate the concept of western, liberal democracies, hate democracy, hate freedom, hate capitalism, and hate Ukraine are supporting Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or apologizing for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or expressing sympathy for Russia's position by taking Russia's position and arguing that the expansion of a defensive military alliance is a threat to Russia, and therefore Russia is in some way justified in invading Ukraine.

But it's not true.

The expansion of NATO is a threat to Russia only if you assume Russia will attack NATO in the future. The reason for this is because NATO is a defensive military alliance.

It is true, that the expansion of NATO does make Russia relatively weaker in relation to NATO-member states. This puts Russia in a more geopolitical disadvantageous position relative to NATO-member states. And what Russia wants to do, what all polities want to do, is to increase the maximum range of all of their possible future choices. In short, they want to increase their options, because increasing a state's options increases a state's chances for survival. But in my view this is not a sufficient moral or ethical or legal justification for waging offensive war.

So, that is why I made the statement: "The only thing Russia has to do to avoid nuclear war with NATO is to not invade or attack NATO-member countries. It's not a big ask."

This US/NATO position continues to give P**** power. Not only are nuclear weapons utterly stupid, but they're also preventing the US from directly engaging in this popular war.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the US/NATO position on nuclear weapons -- that is the continued maintenance of the Western nuclear arsenal -- continues to give Putin power?

That doesn't make any sense.

If US/NATO did not have nuclear weapons and Russia did have nuclear weapons, that would give Putin and Russia more relative power than they have now.