How should west respond to potential (likely) Russian invasion of Ukraine?

[barbos]

but he is a well-known and respected political scientist. There are also well-known and respected political scientists who disagree with him.

Then you can tell us the name he gave to these "opponents" of his. After all you watched it in full.

 

[Copernicus]

You really don't read my posts. In my last post, I explicitly said that he wasn't a Putin stooge

"You" are not the only one "you" in here.
There are a bunch of other "you" in here who did call him a stooge.

I don't care what other people call him. I am only responsible for what I say, and I think that Mearsheimer is worth listening to. That doesn't mean that I have to agree with his conclusions, but he is a well-known and respected political scientist. There are also well-known and respected political scientists who disagree with him. In the end, all we can do is listen to their arguments and arrive at our own conclusions, because experts in the subject matter can disagree just as strongly as us amateurs and laymen. That is why I would prefer to hear your own arguments for what you believe rather than have you just point at a video of a lecture and try to use it as an authority to pump up your conclusions. That isn't an argument that validates your opinions. In all honesty, if you really did listen to his video, you would likely hear a number of assumptions and claims that you disagreed with. I certainty did. That doesn't mean that I disrespect the man's intellectual honesty or dismiss everything he said out of hand.

How convenient. [removed] that I barely answer to all these comments people make because I have not watched the video and when I explained why I don't, you claim to be responsible only for yours. No, you are responsible for all your gang. You are no different from the gang, you are in the gang, you are the gang. The gang who only listen to crap they want to listen.

You need to work more on your reading skills. I previously said that I doubted that you watched the video, but later I said that I took your word for it that you did--the first video, anyway. What I said here was that, if you really did watch it, then you would likely have heard him say things you disagreed with. Did you agree with literally everything he said? I've been trying to say that I agreed with you that the man's lecture was worth listening to, [removed]. This is why people keep dogpiling you in these threads. It is hard to carry on a civil conversation with you.

That is why I would prefer to hear your own arguments for what you believe rather than have you just point at a video of a lecture and try to use it as an authority to pump up your conclusions.

How convenient. You (your fucking gang) had been dismissing me as paid Putin's troll for ages. And when I put a link to the lecture which basically repeats everything I have been saying, you suddenly became interested in what I have to say.
I told you what I have to say.

I have no "gang" here, and I repeat that I am only responsible for what I say, not what others say to you. There are those who think that you are a paid troll, but I don't believe it and have said so in the past. Why would anyone pay you to bloviate in an internet discussion group that is read by a relative handful of people? Why would Russian intelligence agencies bother with such a small audience? And you have been a member of this internet community for years. You have said in the past that you aren't a Putin supporter, and I can believe that. You do enjoy defending him at times, perhaps because it gets such a strong reaction from people. But most of the time, I think that you believe what you say. [removed] I've got a thicker skin than you. But I'm not calling you that. I will continue to poke fun at some of the things you say, but that is fair play here. Sorry if it gets you angry at times. We all take offense from time to time, but it's better to let it roll off your back, if possible.

I have actually done what you asked--i.e. watched the video. All you've said about it is that the video endorses ("everything"???) you've said. I don't think so, and it would be interesting to hear what you might have disagreed with. Professor Mearsheimer does endorse some of your claims and conclusions, so it is worth discussing, even though you have said almost nothing about its content. FTR, I really would like to know your opinions about some of the other things he said about Russia and Ukraine. For example, do you agree with him that Ukraine should never have handed its nuclear weapons over to Russia? Do you agree with his stance that Russia should not have invaded Ukraine? I would also be interested in your opinion of the opening remarks in the second video--about the conflict between liberalism and nationalism--but that would take us beyond the thread topic. Mearsheimer was talking primarily to a Romanian and East European audience, but many of the points he was making clearly resonated with some of his colleagues on the panel.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Aww, poor Pootey! Spent so many of his (stolen) billions trying to keep Ukraine in his portfolio, and now the bad bad US wants to kick the poor humanitarian to the curb and let the Trumpy Ukranians ally themselves with the European aggressors who have been trying to invade Russia and annex it for its oil ever since Crimea volunteered to become part of Russia.

^^^
Your news sources have turned you into a laughingstock, barbos.
Putin's ambition to re-create the Soviet glory days has remained the one constant in his erratic behavior. You can dress it up with all kinds lies, you can cite corrupt American motives, real and imagined, but the fact of Russia's perennial aggression can't be magically disappeared by your whining.
No, nukes in Cuba are still a non-starter, as the US putting nukes on the Ukranian/Russian border would be. That's not happening either.

This will end up being a disaster for Russia if Vlad the Poisoner does attack Ukraine. Pootie's buddy Trump the useful idiot is no longer president. Russia has half the population of the US and one tenth the GDP. And then we have Western Europe to consider. Russia as it is is sliding into poverty and economic decay as is. Making Russia disgorge Ukraine will be an rather unpleasant experience for Russia if Pootie is stupid enough to invade Ukraine. Russia cannot win an economic war with the West if Russia does something as stupid as invade Ukraine or harass other bordering nations such as Lithuania.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

 

[barbos]

I actually doubt that barbos himself watched either of the videos that he posted links to.

[removed]

I feel Cope does not feel what he posts.

 

[barbos]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

Because hordes of people made careers on russian studies, not on Sudan studies.
They know how putin thinks and want to get paid telling you that and write a book about after that you would buy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

 

[barbos]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

 

[Copernicus]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Actually, I'm the only one in this thread who has both watched the lecture and discussed it in detail. So far, you've said nothing about it other than that you think Mearsheimer endorses everything you've said. I don't recall you saying that you think Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from invading its territory.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

Note that we didn't annex South Sudan. We attempted to put a stop to genocide by separating the attackers from the victims, but it didn't work too well.

 

[zorq]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Especially YOU! Have you said ANYTHING about the lecture besides the fact that you agree with it? Stop being a hypocrite and tell us what you think is remarkable about the lecture.

 

[barbos]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Especially YOU! Have you said ANYTHING about the lecture besides the fact that you agree with it? Stop being a hypocrite and tell us what you think is remarkable about the lecture.

I did, I said, he literally repeats everything I say and that there is nothing for me to discuss here except to point out that he is a well respected US professor with a long hard to remember title and you can't easily discount him. Moreover his audience there which were mostly university folks agreed with him, certainly the lady in peach coat. She even tried to fake russian accent a little. But Of course you don't know that because you did not watch it and all of a sudden is interested what Putin's troll has to say.


So hypocrite is you.

He:
1. Called it a US organized coup.
2. Used "fascist elements" referring to Ukrainian regime.
3. Mentioned color revolutions
4. mentioned the 2008 War in Georgia and called it the same - US organized war.
5. Reminded Cuban Missile Crises (such a fool, eh?)
6. Explained why Putin does what he does and why what he does is rational and not unexpected.
7. Said that republicans and democrats are not different as far as foreign policy concerned.
8. Trashed US media
9. Even suggested that Russia WILL NOT be with China but instead will be with West in possible future war with China and because of it, this this whole thing is stupid. This alone shows that professor did his homework.
10. Suggested the exact same solution I suggested.
List can go on.

He is literally a virtual copy of myself.

 

[Rhea]

========================
STAFF NOTICE
========================

Address the argument, not the person.
Ad hominems are against the TOU. Meaningful discussion is not advanced when insulting each other.

 

[barbos]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Actually, I'm the only one in this thread who has both watched the lecture and discussed it in detail. So far, you've said nothing about it other than that you think Mearsheimer endorses everything you've said. I don't recall you saying that you think Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from invading its territory.

That's not true, because I clearly watched it in full and discussed it in the very first post. As for you, you failed to answer a quiz question about the lecture, so it's doubtful that you are being truthful.

 

[barbos]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

Note that we didn't annex South Sudan. We attempted to put a stop to genocide by separating the attackers from the victims, but it didn't work too well.

Note that you did not watch the lecture.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

My position is "The US should not deploy US troops outside the US unless the US is facing a threat to the US."

I don't actually give a shit about other countries. If they want US support, they should start paying US taxes.

 

[barbos]

By the way the guy has a lecture on lying too


Surprising conclusion .... democratic leaders lie more than autocrats.
And again, I watched that lecture in full as well. [removed]

 

[barbos]

Why is it okay for the US to unilaterally say "Sudan, we don't give a shit about your opinion, South Sudan is now a separate country", but if Russia takes any action with regards to eastern Ukraine that is the most morally reprehensible act committed by any country in the last 200 years?

I'm surprised that you are taking this position. As a libertarian, you have always been against imperialism?

My position is "The US should not deploy US troops outside the US unless the US is facing a threat to the US."

Damn, Mearsheimer talked about that too in the lecture.

 

[Copernicus]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Actually, I'm the only one in this thread who has both watched the lecture and discussed it in detail. So far, you've said nothing about it other than that you think Mearsheimer endorses everything you've said. I don't recall you saying that you think Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from invading its territory.

That's not true, because I clearly watched it in full and discussed it in the very first post. As for you, you failed to answer a quiz question about the lecture, so it's doubtful that you are being truthful.

All you did was post a link to it and attempt to use it as a blanket endorsement for "everything" you've been posting here. You have not discussed the content of his lecture or answered any of my questions to you about the content, including my repeated inquiries about whether you agreed with Mearsheimer's stated position that Ukraine should have retained its nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a future Russian invasion. You don't recall everything he said, but I am quite willing to accept your word that you watched the video. So don't start accusing me of not answering your questions until you answer the ones that I asked you first.

 

[barbos]

So no one is discussing the lecture, as expected.

Actually, I'm the only one in this thread who has both watched the lecture and discussed it in detail. So far, you've said nothing about it other than that you think Mearsheimer endorses everything you've said. I don't recall you saying that you think Ukraine should have kept its nuclear weapons in order to deter Russia from invading its territory.

That's not true, because I clearly watched it in full and discussed it in the very first post. As for you, you failed to answer a quiz question about the lecture, so it's doubtful that you are being truthful.

All you did was post a link to it and attempt to use it as a blanket endorsement for "everything" you've been posting here. You have not discussed the content of his lecture or answered any of my questions to you about the content, including my repeated inquiries about whether you agreed with Mearsheimer's stated position that Ukraine should have retained its nuclear weapons as a deterrent against a future Russian invasion. You don't recall everything he said, but I am quite willing to accept your word that you watched the video. So don't start accusing me of not answering your questions until you answer the ones that I asked you first.

You keep discussing me, instead of doing what I told you to do.