Elixir
Made in America
FUCK NO!
All of it rightfully belongs to Russia, and America stole it from them!
Seriously... you're trying to get barbos to say something that could cost him his job. Not gonna happen.
-
Features
How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?
- Thread starter Harry Bosch
- Start date
FUCK NO!
All of it rightfully belongs to Russia, and America stole it from them!
Seriously... you're trying to get barbos to say something that could cost him his job. Not gonna happen.
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
That's the problem for barbos, he's living the fantasy, and with a healthy helping of bogeymanism.
Russia is a gangster state. If it was a democratic gangster state that would be an improvement but the gangsters only maintain control by terror, murder, fear, etc. Empowering people is dangerous when you're the person in control, even empowering other gangsters. I think barbos wants to live actual democracy but clinging to an abusive guardian is presently easier and a more convenient survival strategy. Same goes for millions in Russia. Even the Putin is guilty. Without the NATO bogeyman he'd be driving a taxi.
Elixir
Made in America
At least Vladimir Putin had the wherewithal to select an external (to his country) boogeyman. That helps, if you want unified support.
Trump elected to declare war on and vilify most Americans - most of the electorate in his own country, ensuring that he could only stay in power by division and coup.
The desperate violent, time limited coup attempt fizzled, so now the Trump Party is back on the less overtly violent, slightly slower track to autocracy; rigging elections at the state level and providing means to overturn results they don't like. That should keep things going their way in '22 and '24, as long as they can keep their morons convinced that Biden is now running Hillary's pizza parlor etc.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
As I knew you would. I pointed this out, because you were oversimplifying by claiming that he agreed with your positions. In fact, this is one of the things he is best known for, because he was rather alone in opposing the denuclearization of Ukraine. His prediction did come true, but it was a whacky idea, because leaving those nukes in Ukraine was a lot more dangerous to world security than risking that Russia would go back on its word. The fact is, that he arrives at his position from a very different place than you do. He does not approve of Russia's aggressive behavior, but he blames the US and NATO for allowing it to happen. Unlike Mearsheimer, you advocate for Russia's aggression.
You start out by saying that it was a dumb idea for Ukraine to keep the nukes, but then you accuse me of calling him dumb. Mearsheimer is well-known for his iconoclastic ideas, but he is a minority opinion in his policy recommendations because of the kinds of extreme positions that he takes. He also thinks of Russia as a one-trick pony with a weak economy based on one main export--oil and gas--which has no real future. So he expects Russia to sort of fade away as a major threat to the US. Nobody really takes that seriously. Russia has managed to rebuild and modernize its military to the point where it really does threaten not just its immediate neighbors, but also all of Eastern Europe. That is the main reason that Germany has finally put Nordstream 2 on hold. They need the energy, but they realize that Russia will use its energy supplies to blackmail them in the future. Russia is doing that now, as it cuts back on supplies to Eastern Europe, causing a large drop in fuel supplies and even reversing the flow of gas back into Eastern Europe in one of the pipelines.
Russia has already begun making demands on the Baltic republics and has even made threats towards Finland and Sweden for considering NATO membership. Those threats are actually driving both countries closer to the NATO alliance. Mearsheimer (or any political scientist) could explain why to you. It's called the "security dilemma", which is one of the main reasons that Mearsheimer uses to bash the US for. He thinks that the US and NATO have kicked a hornet's nest by expanding into former Soviet-dominated nations. Those nations invited the expansion precisely because they have had decades of experience in how Russia expands its power and influence. So it isn't just about Russia. It is also about our allies in Europe. Again, Mearsheimer thinks we should just forget Europe as much less important in our coming struggle to contain China, which is his major concern.
As for the points you listed, all you did was list them as positions that Mearsheimer took that you happen to agree with. I have already conceded the overlap between some of your positions and his, so I'm not sure what you want me to discuss. It would help if you were more specific about what we need to discuss about the list. I've made the point that Mearsheimer arrives at his criticisms of the US and NATO from a very different direction than you do. He does not advocate for Russian aggression in Ukraine.
barbos
Contributor
And who do you think "reelected" Yeltsin?
Did Pootey tell you that himself?
Just to inform those you are trying to mislead...
On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin. Yeltsin also announced that he wanted to see Putin as his successor.
America had nothing - zero, zip, nada to do with it.
Once in power, Pootey began nationalizing and appropriating property and doling it out to those who swore allegiance to him.
Now he's the "richest" man in the world.
Because ... America? Ya sure ya betcha.
To hear barbos talk about it you'd think Trump - or maybe Obama - was running Russia and amassing troops on its neighbors' borders just to make Pootey uncomfortable. .
And role of US in direct approving Putin at the time is not that clear.
barbos
Contributor
I agreed with all his positions in that lecture. No simplifications needed.
barbos
Contributor
Dude, stop talking about nukes and start addressing my actual points which I listed in this thread.
Not fucking good enough!
Go through the list and explicitly admit what we (I Mearsheimer) agreed.
Overlap my ass!
The guy fucking repeated all my points, all you have to say for yoursef is " some overlap"
You lost when you decided to attack credibility of Mearsheimer by searching dirt on him.
Last edited:
barbos
Contributor
No threats were made. Finland warned Russia, Russia warned Finland back with standard russian warning that NATO membership would make them a target, that's just a fact.
And Finland in their desire to placate US neocon cunts and their media started the whole exchange, needlessly so I must say. And no, Finland is not going to join NATO.
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I think that the Finns see it a little bit differently: Finland insists on its right to join Nato in defiance of Russia
Just like any other sovereign nation, Finland has a right to apply for membership in NATO, as does Sweden. Russian threats only lend ammunition to those Finns and Swedes who advocate for NATO membership. Meanwhile, Biden has dug his heels in and assured Ukraine that the US will respond strongly, if Putin unleashes another unprovoked invasion of their territory. Putin has made a serious blunder, if he thinks that he can bully and blackmail other countries into getting his way. If he is just conducting a "wag the dog" exercise in order to distract Russians, he could find himself in a serious miscalculation. He might at some point think that he has no choice but to invade, and that is going to result in very serious consequences for everyone.
As for your list of agreements with Mearsheimer, I have already agreed with you that there are points of agreement between you and him. I really don't care if there are, but I will address any specific issues that you want to discuss. Meanwhile, I think I've explained clearly why I don't think that your list is very consequential. Mearsheimer reached his position from a very different perspective than the one that you take. In particular, he does not endorse a Russian invasion of Ukrainian territory. You, apparently, do. I hope it can be avoided, but that is entirely up to Putin and Russian strategists. I think they've done their best to paint themselves into a corner.
barbos
Contributor
Russia did not deny that. Russia simply reminded what it means.
As for Ukraine, they are not sovereign now and were not sovereign before 2014.
Before 2014 they were Russian client state with ridiculous amount of monetary help, which they have not yet repaid back in any shape or form. Same story with Belarus. You can't have them without paying back all that money Russia gave them over the years. So claims of sovereignty does not work for these two. And even if they were, it does not mean that you can decide security problems in Europe without Russia, or even against Russia in this case without Russia reacting.
barbos
Contributor
I am giving you last chance before permanent ignore.
The guy says that 2014 was US organized fascist coup and you give me this?
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Yes, it means that Russia threatens "serious military and political consequences that would require an adequate response from the Russian side". The intention was clearly to intimidate Finland not to exercise its sovereign right.
Ukraine was an independent sovereign state after 1991, when the Soviet Union disappeared and all the 15 republics, including Russia, went their separate ways. Russia even acknowledged as much in the Budapest Memo, which it signed as a separate sovereign state. The Russian Federation did not give any money to Ukraine, so I don't know what you are talking about. The Soviet Union was not Russia, although the Soviet government obviously saw itself as a continuation of the Russian Empire that was superseded by a revolutionary socialist government. Nobody is trying to exclude Russia from any negotiations, but Russia cannot dictate to other sovereign nations how they run their affairs any more than the US can. It is no longer the big cheese in a Soviet empire, and Putin is not going to turn the clock back no matter how belligerent he gets. If Putin orders an invasion and seizes Ukraine by military force, then other nations will react strongly. They have "reminded what it means" to engage in an unprovoked attack on Ukraine. Nobody is forcing Russia to invade anyone else, and Russia alone has to be responsible for its actions.
barbos
Contributor
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
Note that the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic was always a full voting member of the UN and separate from the Russian Federation in that body since 1945. Moreover, it always possessed a legal right on paper to secede from the Soviet Union (see 
Ukraine and the United Nations):
Ukraine exercised its option to secede in 1991. It was never part of the Russian Federation or Russian territory after the overthrow of the Tsarist imperial government, which had seized the country more than a century earlier when it absorbed most of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and part of Poland.
Ukraine and the United Nations):Ukraine exercised its option to secede in 1991. It was never part of the Russian Federation or Russian territory after the overthrow of the Tsarist imperial government, which had seized the country more than a century earlier when it absorbed most of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and part of Poland.
barbos
Contributor
-crickets-
TV and credit cards
Contributor
Ruble watch.
Let’s see if Putin can manage to tank the ruble again. Go ahead Vlad, your move. Do something foolish, suffer the economic repercussions, then blame the US for not looking the other way.
Can he get away with just taking a nibble? Say perhaps the Dnepr-Crimea canal. I think an overt occupation of Donbas would be too much. Can’t walk away empty-handed. Can’t trigger meaningful sanctions. What’s a crime boss to do?
I read barbos comments and think about his inability to confront the facts and can’t help but draw a parallel to the comments of Trump supporters. Is this the road to perdition?
Let’s see if Putin can manage to tank the ruble again. Go ahead Vlad, your move. Do something foolish, suffer the economic repercussions, then blame the US for not looking the other way.
Can he get away with just taking a nibble? Say perhaps the Dnepr-Crimea canal. I think an overt occupation of Donbas would be too much. Can’t walk away empty-handed. Can’t trigger meaningful sanctions. What’s a crime boss to do?
I read barbos comments and think about his inability to confront the facts and can’t help but draw a parallel to the comments of Trump supporters. Is this the road to perdition?
Elixir
Made in America
How do you say this is no threats???
Copernicus
Industrial Grade Linguist
I'm imagining that when barbos was a child, he was accosted by a bigger kid who demanded his lunch money. The bigger kid explained that there would be consequences if barbos didn't hand over the money, so he handed it over. Nobody was threatened in this imaginary scenario, but the lesson was that the bigger kid had every right to satisfy his hungry appetite. That's just the way things were. Besides, one can roast crickets and eat them for lunch, and that tends to cut down on all the annoying chirping sounds.
barbos
Contributor
You don't know anything about recent russian history. And whatever you do "know" comes from Hollywood movies.
Russian people my ass.
Last edited: