Politics Is it time for the west to assemble an army and kick Putin out of Ukraine?

[Gun Nut]

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

I hear people complain (not that this is a complaint) that the "problem" with NATO is that the US spends more than other countries. Why is this a problem for what NATO is supposed to do? NATO's initiatives being close to 100% the US' interest, 70% seems like a bargain to me.

 

[barbos]

I'm proudly intolerant of murder, rape, pillaging, and all abuse of the innocent. Barbos isn't. He's proud of his murdering, pillaging, raping abusive soldiers. Tolerate that? Fuck no.

Barbos is clearly a bad person. There are good people in Russia. We have all seen the Russian protests and Putin's crackdowns. I personally have a friend who fled from Russia with his wife earlier this year. But that's not Barbos. He's the opposite. He's complicit. And he has no excuse. He's not ignorant. The evidence has been presented to him. He's bad. And bad people deserve to feel bad lest they start to think that being bad is actually good. I can't put him in a time out but I can point out what a hypocritical scumbag he presents himself to be every chance I get. If that makes me a bully, then fine. But I don't think I'm the bully here. I'm standing against the abusive world power, while he stands with it.

YOU are the bad person, not me.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm proudly intolerant of murder, rape, pillaging, and all abuse of the innocent. Barbos isn't. He's proud of his murdering, pillaging, raping abusive soldiers. Tolerate that? Fuck no.

Barbos is clearly a bad person. There are good people in Russia. We have all seen the Russian protests and Putin's crackdowns. I personally have a friend who fled from Russia with his wife earlier this year. But that's not Barbos. He's the opposite. He's complicit. And he has no excuse. He's not ignorant. The evidence has been presented to him. He's bad. And bad people deserve to feel bad lest they start to think that being bad is actually good. I can't put him in a time out but I can point out what a hypocritical scumbag he presents himself to be every chance I get. If that makes me a bully, then fine. But I don't think I'm the bully here. I'm standing against the abusive world power, while he stands with it.

YOU are the bad person, not me.

Great! The I'm rubber, you're glue defense.

 

[zorq]

YOU are the bad person, not me.

Let me make it super simple for you:

Good people don't support murder, rape, theft, and pillaging. You do. You are bad.

The world has heard your excuses and the world agrees, they do not justify Russia's atrocities. Most of them are so ridiculous and stupid, I don't know how you can type them without bursting out laughing at yourself. "In Ukraine, there's a street named after some Ukranian war hero who also liked NAZIs. Well, I guess Russia has no choice but to murder tens of thousands of people and steal half of Ukraine's territory!"

The next time Hollywood needs an evil clown, I recommend that they skip Pennywise and hire a Russian apologist.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

I hear people complain (not that this is a complaint) that the "problem" with NATO is that the US spends more than other countries. Why is this a problem for what NATO is supposed to do? NATO's initiatives being close to 100% the US' interest, 70% seems like a bargain to me.

Huh? NATO is basically about keeping Russia from munching on Europe.

 

[Hermit]

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

I hear people complain (not that this is a complaint) that the "problem" with NATO is that the US spends more than other countries. Why is this a problem for what NATO is supposed to do? NATO's initiatives being close to 100% the US' interest, 70% seems like a bargain to me.

Huh? NATO is basically about keeping Russia from munching on Europe.

It is basically about more than that. It is about protecting the sphere of influence of a superpower. Also, don't think for a moment that the Soviet Union would have stopped in Europe. The domino theory was a prime motivator for the founding of NATO and the US was its prime mover because it had the most to lose if the Soviet Union kept gobbling up one country after another.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is basically about more than that. It is about protecting the sphere of influence of a superpower. Also, don't think for a moment that the Soviet Union would have stopped in Europe. The domino theory was a prime motivator for the founding of NATO and the US was its prime mover because it had the most to lose if the Soviet Union kept gobbling up one country after another.

Yes, Russia wouldn't have stopped with Europe.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You are making no sense. Accepting that other people have other opinions than you doesn't mean you agree with them.

What makes you think I don't accept the reality of varying opinions?

You did say this:

It's ok to be delusional.

It’s delusional to think that’s ok.
Delusional gave us Trump, and now, The Big Lie.
Maybe okay with you …

You are coming across as incredibly arrogant. It makes me wonder if you have a mindset that allows you to grow and change. You seem incredibly set in your ways.

I consider my opinions on some things to be well grounded in study and experience (of which I have an abundance). I see no honest way to simply change my "ways" (opinions) based solely on the fact that your ossified opinions differ from my own.
But I am not the subject of this thread, nor are my opinions or yours, regardless of how "wrong" each of our opinions may seem to the other.
Yeah, I'm fucking arrogant as hell when it comes to respecting willful ignorance, political trolling and spreading blatant falsehoods.
So sue me.
You seem to want me to "grow out of that". I suggest that perhaps it is you who needs to grow, change, and accept the harsh reality that some people's ideas are too misguided and dangerous to accept like a good little pacifist.

I disagree. I'm not going to sue you. But I think this is an interesting conversation. I think we should keep this to be about you. I'd be very grateful if you indulged me.

Do you have any examples of you changing your opinions on anything major? I have several. I can go first.

1) I was a climate change skeptic until the IPCC report. And then I changed my position 180.

2) I was a frothing-at-the-mouth militant atheist thinking all evil stems from religion. Around 2012 my opinions on that started changing. And now I think religion is the tits and very much necessary in the world. I'm still just as much an atheist. I just don't think religion is solely a force for evil anymore.

3) I was all for very permissive immigration until 2015 and I saw how the Afghani refugee's radically changed the Stockholm nightlife from peaceful to violent and dangerous. Now making it highly inadvisable to wear a fancy watch at night. Not to mention when the, now Swedish, children of the 2001-2003 Somali refugees turns to a life of crime, pressured into it by their parents, turning the suburbs of all major Swedish cities into gangland maffia territories. Today Sweden has lots of Salafist Islamic schools (yes, for children) where girls are covered and where evolution isn't taught. This didn't have to happen. We could have taken in these refugees and made it work out just fine. If we'd done the right thing. But the political establishment is caught up in the mantra saying that everybody is the same and equal, but also if brown people come here they will keep their mouth shut and obey their bleeding heart caring white Swedish superiors. It turns out that it doesn't matter how generous you are, if you are racist, black people aren't going to like you. Go figure. So because people are fucking idiots, it's probably best to restrict immigration. It's a much harder policy to fuck that up. Structural racism is a bitch and very hard to fix, especially if the people in charge to fix it are clueless about it and criminally naive.

4) I thought I had my shit together until my ex girlfriend made me realize that I have a fearful avoidant attachment style and that expressing emotions to loved one's terrifies me. To the point where I'd manage to hide this fact even from myself. Quite the rude awakening. The good news is that I have lots to talk to my therapist about.

5) Nuclear power is the way to go. Renewables is nice, but will never be the prime source of power. Environmentalists don't care about the environment. They're just a Mao'ist-style sect against anybody having fun.

These were just the first major ones that popped into my head. If I keep going I can find lots of smaller ones.

Do you have similar examples?

Right away - I was anti- nuclear until a theoretical physicist explained the realities to me, regarding the disposal/storage/re-use of reactor waste. Changed my conviction entirely and almost instantly.

I had an epiphany when I was 17 that I attributed to “supernatural” causes that I later came to understand as a biological phenomenon.

I’ve had lots of changes of heart about other individuals, their intentions and the quality of their actions - both positive and negative.

Lots of other examples. I change, my ideas and opinions change but certain core values do not. How about you? Do you have an actual “center” that remains unaltered, or no?

Thank you for humoring me. It's interesting. It would be interesting to make this it's own thread. It's the ultimate skeptics exercise.

No, I don't think I have an actual center. The reason I say this is that growing up I was a victim with a chip on my shoulder. I could justify any horrific act because I had suffered the most (only in my head though). I did LSD at 18 which altered my inner narrative radically. And I quite quickly shifted to focusing on other people's needs, rather than my own. Later in life, due to a trauma, I developed a depression. Coming out of that I was much more empathic. Taking other people perspective became much easier, and I became less reactive and defensive. Every long relationship I have come out of has changed me. There's many events like this that have shifted my core in pretty radical ways. When I was young I was focused on what I can get from life. Today I focus on what I can give to my loved ones, friends and the world.

The fact that I have changed so much makes me skeptical about there being some sort of true inner self trying to surface, ie Platonic idealism. I like the South African philosophy of Ubuntu on this. What we are is shaped by the people we interact with. We became what we need to be for the groups we are a part of. The only problem is that humans have an amazing ability to make things more complicated than it needs to be.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

I hear people complain (not that this is a complaint) that the "problem" with NATO is that the US spends more than other countries. Why is this a problem for what NATO is supposed to do? NATO's initiatives being close to 100% the US' interest, 70% seems like a bargain to me.

I'm not so sure about that. NATO is basically a anti-Russian protection cartel. Russian aggression, has since, WW2 been a continual problem in Europe. If Russia invades Europe and conquers it, it would be a bigger problem for Europeans than it would be for Americans.

Both European countries and USA are free market capitalist economies. Ie economies that grow the most from actors in the markets being left the fuck alone. So both USA and Europe benefit in the same way from keeping Russian kleptocracy out of Europe. So how NATO defends American interests more than European interests... nah... I don't see it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It would also split NATO. Article 5 does not say that an attack close to one member's border is an attack on all members. Some NATO members would not join in an aggressive attack outside the NATO borders.

Meh. Who cares? NATO consists of 28 member nations, but is basically the USA, whose contribution amounts to 70.5% of the organisation's total funding. The second-biggest contributor is the UK with 5.4%.

​

I hear people complain (not that this is a complaint) that the "problem" with NATO is that the US spends more than other countries. Why is this a problem for what NATO is supposed to do? NATO's initiatives being close to 100% the US' interest, 70% seems like a bargain to me.

Huh? NATO is basically about keeping Russia from munching on Europe.

It is basically about more than that. It is about protecting the sphere of influence of a superpower. Also, don't think for a moment that the Soviet Union would have stopped in Europe. The domino theory was a prime motivator for the founding of NATO and the US was its prime mover because it had the most to lose if the Soviet Union kept gobbling up one country after another.

The Domino theory was complete bullshit. The problem was that western thinkers completely ignored how extremely exploitative colonialism had been. These thinkers saw USSR corrupting the world with communist propaganda, like a pedophile with a van full of free candy. But the west was doing it to themselves. All USSR did was to present any other alternative story than European and American benevolence.

It can't be emphasized enough how delusional the European and American public was on the impact of colonialism was around the globe. In the 1950'ies they all bought into the White Man's Burden story of how white people brought brown savages civilization, and how the "natives" should be grateful. This narrative was actively pushing ex-colonials straight into the arms of USSR.

This only stopped in the 1980'ies when the Western mainstream narrative on their colonial past switched, to us partly taking responsibility for our actions. Very few people in the west today think that colonialism was great for their colonial subjects. But even in the 1980'ies the idiotic public of Europe and USA having a common narrative of that free market capitalism works just as well in a modern democracy with a non-corrupt judiciary, as it would in a kleptocracy propped up by CIA. Further pushing the ex colonials into the arms of USSR.

The spread of communism after WW2 is directly linked to the colonials trying to break free from western dominance and turning to the only source of weapons, with which to fight their colonial overlords. The west did Russia's work for them. All the western powers needed to do to stop the spread of communism was to stop throwing gasoline on the fire. Which is what we stopped doing in the 1990'ies, when USSR fell.

The wests fear of USSR created such a bogey man that we scored in our own goal.

Domino theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But as industrialism and information age technology spreads across the world, dampening Europe's head start, we will get a world with wealth and resources more spread out over the globe, this will just sort itself out. Colonialism, and the cold war could only have happened because the wealth gap between the poorest and richest parts of the world was so extreme. Creating all kinds of knock-on effects. Those effects are disappearing now

 

[Hermit]

The Domino theory was complete bullshit. The problem was that western thinkers completely ignored how extremely exploitative colonialism had been. These thinkers saw USSR corrupting the world with communist propaganda, like a pedophile with a van full of free candy. But the west was doing it to themselves. All USSR did was to present any other alternative story than European and American benevolence.

It can't be emphasized enough how delusional the European and American public was on the impact of colonialism was around the globe. In the 1950'ies they all bought into the White Man's Burden story of how white people brought brown savages civilization, and how the "natives" should be grateful. This narrative was actively pushing ex-colonials straight into the arms of USSR.

This only stopped in the 1980'ies when the Western mainstream narrative on their colonial past switched, to us partly taking responsibility for our actions. Very few people in the west today think that colonialism was great for their colonial subjects. But even in the 1980'ies the idiotic public of Europe and USA having a common narrative of that free market capitalism works just as well in a modern democracy with a non-corrupt judiciary, as it would in a kleptocracy propped up by CIA. Further pushing the ex colonials into the arms of USSR.

The spread of communism after WW2 is directly linked to the colonials trying to break free from western dominance and turning to the only source of weapons, with which to fight their colonial overlords. The west did Russia's work for them. All the western powers needed to do to stop the spread of communism was to stop throwing gasoline on the fire. Which is what we stopped doing in the 1990'ies, when USSR fell.

The wests fear of USSR created such a bogey man that we scored in our own goal.

Domino theory - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But as industrialism and information age technology spreads across the world, dampening Europe's head start, we will get a world with wealth and resources more spread out over the globe, this will just sort itself out. Colonialism, and the cold war could only have happened because the wealth gap between the poorest and richest parts of the world was so extreme. Creating all kinds of knock-on effects. Those effects are disappearing now

Yes, as far as the narrative in the west goes, the domino theory is ideological balderdash, but there is a kernel of truth in it, which is this: rival powers will always try to overpower each other. The domino theory is just a blinkered rendition of it, where the members of the Warsaw Pact are aggressors headed by the tyrannical Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the members of NATO are defenders headed by the liberty and freedom loving United States of America. In other words, the domino theory portrays power struggle as a fight between good and evil.

Our resident members whose ideology can best be described as possessive individualism will presently appear and argue that this narrative is exactly correct. There is a kernel of truth in their assertion as well, but their total lack of nuance makes them look somewhat ludicrous.

 

[Elixir]

Hmmm

YOU are the bad person, not me.

Great! The I'm rubber, you're glue defense.

That’s why I never mock barbos.
Right or wrong, you can’t deny the profound implications of his piercing insights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Domino theory was complete bullshit. The problem was that western thinkers completely ignored how extremely exploitative colonialism had been. These thinkers saw USSR corrupting the world with communist propaganda, like a pedophile with a van full of free candy. But the west was doing it to themselves. All USSR did was to present any other alternative story than European and American benevolence.

Have you not noticed Russia attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

Note that Russia may saber-rattle but hasn't gone after a NATO country. The best way to win a war is ensure it's never fought in the first place.

 

[bilby]

Have you not noticed Russia attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

Have you not noticed the United States of America attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

It’s been a tried and tested technique since WWII, and both superpowers have used it to expand their spheres of control, and to deny such expansion to their rival.

Sure, it’s evil and vile behaviour; But don’t pretend that it sets Russia apart from the rest of the world, because it really doesn’t.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Have you not noticed Russia attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

Have you not noticed the United States of America attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

It’s been a tried and tested technique since WWII, and both superpowers have used it to expand their spheres of control, and to deny such expansion to their rival.

Sure, it’s evil and vile behaviour; But don’t pretend that it sets Russia apart from the rest of the world, because it really doesn’t.

Every country tries to increase their sphere of influence. You bet the USA is one of the worst at it. But here's the difference: Russia is taking land. They are killing people. Stealing their grain. Stealing their tractors. Do US soldiers commit evil acts. You bet. In the Russian Army, it's expected. Show me a single Russian soldier who is currently being investigated. The Russians are sending in the Wagner Nazis to kill and torture civilians (and retreating Russians). Wagner isn't sent in to fight Ukranian soldiers. Russia currently is set apart from the world. There is no doubt about it. Want to complain about the US invasion of Iraq. Fine. I'll join you. That was almost 20 years ago. But there was no intentional levelling of cities. No intentional killing of civilians.

 

[bilby]

Have you not noticed Russia attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

Have you not noticed the United States of America attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

It’s been a tried and tested technique since WWII, and both superpowers have used it to expand their spheres of control, and to deny such expansion to their rival.

Sure, it’s evil and vile behaviour; But don’t pretend that it sets Russia apart from the rest of the world, because it really doesn’t.

Every country tries to increase their sphere of influence. You bet the USA is one of the worst at it. But here's the difference: Russia is taking land. They are killing people. Stealing their grain. Stealing their tractors. Do US soldiers commit evil acts. You bet. In the Russian Army, it's expected. Show me a single Russian soldier who is currently being investigated. The Russians are sending in the Wagner Nazis to kill and torture civilians (and retreating Russians). Wagner isn't sent in to fight Ukranian soldiers. Russia currently is set apart from the world. There is no doubt about it. Want to complain about the US invasion of Iraq. Fine. I'll join you. That was almost 20 years ago. But there was no intentional levelling of cities. No intentional killing of civilians.

Meh. Tell it to the Vietnamese.

 

[Jayjay]

Have you not noticed Russia attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

Have you not noticed the United States of America attacking it's neighbors again and again? Same old formula--support some rebels, get them to declare themselves the government, come to their aid. If they can win with propaganda they do but they're willing to resort to force.

It’s been a tried and tested technique since WWII, and both superpowers have used it to expand their spheres of control, and to deny such expansion to their rival.

Sure, it’s evil and vile behaviour; But don’t pretend that it sets Russia apart from the rest of the world, because it really doesn’t.

Every country tries to increase their sphere of influence. You bet the USA is one of the worst at it. But here's the difference: Russia is taking land. They are killing people. Stealing their grain. Stealing their tractors. Do US soldiers commit evil acts. You bet. In the Russian Army, it's expected. Show me a single Russian soldier who is currently being investigated. The Russians are sending in the Wagner Nazis to kill and torture civilians (and retreating Russians). Wagner isn't sent in to fight Ukranian soldiers. Russia currently is set apart from the world. There is no doubt about it. Want to complain about the US invasion of Iraq. Fine. I'll join you. That was almost 20 years ago. But there was no intentional levelling of cities. No intentional killing of civilians.

From my understanding, Wagner group is one of the most effective parts of the operation, and not involved in "killing and torturing civilians". The reason being, that as a mercenary outfit, they had recruited people who are highly motivated and had a military mindset, and also their organizational structure is more flexible than the regular army's. Sure they had some nazis in the mix, but that's besides the point. You're committing the same fallacy barbos did with Azov.

Rest of what you wrote is true of course. There's no comparison between US wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or Syria, and what Russia is doing now.

 

[Jayjay]

Every country tries to increase their sphere of influence. You bet the USA is one of the worst at it. But here's the difference: Russia is taking land. They are killing people. Stealing their grain. Stealing their tractors. Do US soldiers commit evil acts. You bet. In the Russian Army, it's expected. Show me a single Russian soldier who is currently being investigated. The Russians are sending in the Wagner Nazis to kill and torture civilians (and retreating Russians). Wagner isn't sent in to fight Ukranian soldiers. Russia currently is set apart from the world. There is no doubt about it. Want to complain about the US invasion of Iraq. Fine. I'll join you. That was almost 20 years ago. But there was no intentional levelling of cities. No intentional killing of civilians.

Meh. Tell it to the Vietnamese.

That was half a century ago. And even then, USA wasn't trying to annex land or steal people's grain or washing machines.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I know there are some who predict that if the US (and their NATO puppets) were to leave Ukraine alone it would mean that Russia ultimately marches through Spain and into Portugal, I on the other hand say it is not even close to time for the West to assemble an army.

Neocons never quit though.

 

[laughing dog]

I know there are some who predict that if the US (and their NATO puppets) were to leave Ukraine alone it would mean that Russia ultimately marches through Spain and into Portugal, I on the other hand say it is not even close to time for the West to assemble an army.

Neocons never quit though.

If the US and NATO were to leave Ukraine alone, it is very likely all of Ukraine would be conquered by Russia.

No one thinks Russia would continue to march beyond Ukraine because that would mean invading NATO countries and probably starting WW3.

Putin lovers and his dupes enjoy the freedom of dissent and open discussion that Putin will not permit in his country.

Worshippers of authoritarian regimes and their useful dupes never stop.