And call you a Russian stooge. They are unable to think objectively and/or abstractly. All they understand is "Ukraine GOOD! Russia BAD!"
When you start deliberately bombing and shelling civillians you lose the benefit of nuanced consideration of your motivations. Whether he was right or wrong for invading, and whether Ukraine was in the right or wrong in the past, Russia and Putin are very clearly in the wrong here.
Stop it with the killing civilians propaganda. Every military in combat does it. The military come from the people. If parents, siblings and cousins of military personnel are against their nation's war effort and believe surrender is a logical solution, military and political leaders follow the lead of the people. When didn't U.S. intentionally kill civilians? U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fire bombed German cities, German civilians WW2 to degrade the fighting spirit. U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fired bombed civilians, Japan, WW2. In Viet Nam, U.S. Burned the Villages in Order to Save the Villages.
When you start deliberately bombing and shelling civillians you lose the benefit of nuanced consideration of your motivations. Whether he was right or wrong for invading, and whether Ukraine was in the right or wrong in the past, Russia and Putin are very clearly in the wrong here.
Stop it with the killing civilians propaganda. Every military in combat does it. The military come from the people. If parents, siblings and cousins of military personnel are against their nation's war effort and believe surrender is a logical solution, military and political leaders follow the lead of the people. When didn't U.S. intentionally kill civilians? U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fire bombed German cities, German civilians WW2 to degrade the fighting spirit. U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fired bombed civilians, Japan, WW2. In Viet Nam, U.S. Burned the Villages in Order to Save the Villages.
More what-aboutism. Do you Putin worshippers have an actual reason to justify air legitimize what Putin is doing in Ukraine right now?
Ultimately, I believe he's an imperialist who wants to expand the territory and control of Russia. As a secondary goal, I think he wants to challenge the hegemony of the West and perhaps create an axis with China that can operate completely outside of the US / Western Europe paradigm.
I think he's also genuinely threatened by NATO and wants to create a buffer zone.
However, there's a lot of propaganda coming out from both sides. Ukraine was doing a lot of really shady things before the war. Ukraine was also flaunting their independence in Russia's face, knowing Russia had imperialist intentions.
War is complex and dirty. It's easy to label one side as "bad" and the other as "good" but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Flaunting their independence?
Sure, it's in the Geneva Convention. One country thou shalt not flaunt its independence.
The trolls are changing tactics a bit. Their user names are so blatantly recognizable, so the are going in with anonymous posts. Nice work-around Ivan! Take your shots of vodka and go to bed now.
Ultimately, I believe he's an imperialist who wants to expand the territory and control of Russia. As a secondary goal, I think he wants to challenge the hegemony of the West and perhaps create an axis with China that can operate completely outside of the US / Western Europe paradigm.
I think he's also genuinely threatened by NATO and wants to create a buffer zone.
However, there's a lot of propaganda coming out from both sides. Ukraine was doing a lot of really shady things before the war. Ukraine was also flaunting their independence in Russia's face, knowing Russia had imperialist intentions.
War is complex and dirty. It's easy to label one side as "bad" and the other as "good" but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
This is the kind of inappropriate equivalency building that people worry about when one is not very careful about how you talk about “understanding” bad actors and/or actions. There IS no equivalency between possibly irritating a neighbor, and that neighbor invading you. The irritation might have been dumb, but it in NO way diminishes or draws closer to equivalency the bad of the invasion.
Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon.
There's a difference between trying to understand someone's motivations and endorsing those motivations.
Why do people not get that?
In this context, 'understand' is most often meant to imply being partially sympathetic toward and granting justification for. It implies that the action is rational and reasonable.'
'I don't agree with it, but I understand why he did it.'
There's a reason Hitler scholars don't often say "I understand why Hitler did it."
"I understand why Ted Bundy did what he did," is not something you are going to hear from most people.
Most people understand this. Maybe you don't.
The Hitler is example is pretty much perfect.
The Bundy one slightly less so, but only because, strange as it is, we have to worry much more about mouth breathing id*** thinking that murderous dictators might be sympathetic, as compared to regular old murderers. In addition to pathetic, pretty weird.
Stop it with the killing civilians propaganda. Every military in combat does it. The military come from the people. If parents, siblings and cousins of military personnel are against their nation's war effort and believe surrender is a logical solution, military and political leaders follow the lead of the people. When didn't U.S. intentionally kill civilians? U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fire bombed German cities, German civilians WW2 to degrade the fighting spirit. U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fired bombed civilians, Japan, WW2. In Viet Nam, U.S. Burned the Villages in Order to Save the Villages.
More what-aboutism. Do you Putin worshippers have an actual reason to justify air legitimize what Putin is doing in Ukraine right now?
You read what you want to. I have made numerous anti-Putin statements over the past month. I have made no pro-Putin posts, ever. I have said it is more likely than not that C.I.A. made efforts to destabilize Ukraine, 2013 & 2014. Do you believe that is a pro-Putin statement? I have said every bullet, every javelin every old Polish plane U.S./N.A.T.O. sends to Ukraine increases the number of Ukrainians, both civilian and military personnel who will die. Is that a pro-Putin statement? I have said Ukraine should surrender now to save the lives of Ukrainian citizens. Ukraine will surrender in less than a year. Might as well surrender now and save lives. Is that a pro-Putin statement? Bombing/killing civilians is always what it is said about the military one does not like. In order to stop the bombing, Ukraine has the option of Unconditional Surrender. Ukraine will surrender. Putin/Russia did not start by bombing civilians. Current & former U.S. military personnel on this site and on tv have said it would have been tactically wise for Putin/Russia to lead off with a massive bombing effort before Putin/Russia placed one ground troop in Ukraine. Now that Putin/Russia is/are starting to slowly do what every 0-1 to 0-11 U.S. commissioned officer would do, you are saying Putin/Russia is/are wrong for bombing. Tell Ukrainians to surrender. There is no advantage to surrendering 10 months from now.
When you start deliberately bombing and shelling civillians you lose the benefit of nuanced consideration of your motivations. Whether he was right or wrong for invading, and whether Ukraine was in the right or wrong in the past, Russia and Putin are very clearly in the wrong here.
Stop it with the killing civilians propaganda. Every military in combat does it. The military come from the people. If parents, siblings and cousins of military personnel are against their nation's war effort and believe surrender is a logical solution, military and political leaders follow the lead of the people. When didn't U.S. intentionally kill civilians? U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fire bombed German cities, German civilians WW2 to degrade the fighting spirit. U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fired bombed civilians, Japan, WW2. In Viet Nam, U.S. Burned the Villages in Order to Save the Villages.
You know that things can change, right? Your most recent example is from a war 50 years ago. Since at least the Gulf War - and certainly in AFG and Iraq - the US has gone to great lengths to reduce civilian casualties. Any where near perfect? Nope. But in the majority of cases, tries quite hard. Very easy for me to believe that Putin is far, far less concerned about it.
Ultimately, I believe he's an imperialist who wants to expand the territory and control of Russia. As a secondary goal, I think he wants to challenge the hegemony of the West and perhaps create an axis with China that can operate completely outside of the US / Western Europe paradigm.
I think he's also genuinely threatened by NATO and wants to create a buffer zone.
However, there's a lot of propaganda coming out from both sides. Ukraine was doing a lot of really shady things before the war. Ukraine was also flaunting their independence in Russia's face, knowing Russia had imperialist intentions.
War is complex and dirty. It's easy to label one side as "bad" and the other as "good" but the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
This is the kind of inappropriate equivalency building that people worry about when one is not very careful about how you talk about “understanding” bad actors and/or actions. There IS no equivalency between possibly irritating a neighbor, and that neighbor invading you. The irritation might have been dumb, but it in NO way diminishes or draws closer to equivalency the bad of the invasion.
Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon.
"Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon."
Poor analogy, although on a superficial level it might be tempting to go with it.
International relations plays operates on a different set of rules than criminal justice. When your opponent has the ability to wipe out your civilization, examining their motives are definitely worth of discussion.
And call you a Russian stooge. They are unable to think objectively and/or abstractly. All they understand is "Ukraine GOOD! Russia BAD!"
RuSSiAn CoLLuSiOn permanently broke their brains. They can only think in binary, tribal terms now. Zero logic. Zero principles. Very sad.
Hey look, it’s a mouth breather! Trump didn’t play with the Russians in the 2016 election (and the R Senators who said that he did were just kidding). And the massive Idi*** who support Trump aren’t the unprincipled tribalists. It’s actually the OTHER side who are.
Typical pathetic, transparent effort at deflection. Grow up, and stop trying to wreck the country you CLAIM to love.
This is the kind of inappropriate equivalency building that people worry about when one is not very careful about how you talk about “understanding” bad actors and/or actions. There IS no equivalency between possibly irritating a neighbor, and that neighbor invading you. The irritation might have been dumb, but it in NO way diminishes or draws closer to equivalency the bad of the invasion.
Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon.
"Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon."
Poor analogy, although on a superficial level it might be tempting to go with it.
International relations plays operates on a different set of rules than criminal justice. When your opponent has the ability to wipe out your civilization, examining their motives are definitely worth of discussion.
You, like so many, simply don’t properly understand analogies. This has nothing to do with “rules” or criminal justice. It’s about being very careful about not giving or appearing to give ANY kind of a pass to a very bad actor. That’s important. Because there are LOTS of people in this world who will NOT understand nuance.
So, sure, one analyzes Putin (or Hitler’s) motivations WHILE being extremely careful about not giving the impression of sympathy, equivalency, etc. Not complicated stuff.
"Pretty much the same as why we think it bad to talk about where and when a woman was walking when she was violently attacked. In another context, that’s worthy of discussion. Relative to the violent crime, it is not, and risks giving the impression that we’re giving ANY level of pass to the violent felon."
Poor analogy, although on a superficial level it might be tempting to go with it.
International relations plays operates on a different set of rules than criminal justice. When your opponent has the ability to wipe out your civilization, examining their motives are definitely worth of discussion.
You, like so many, simply don’t properly understand analogies. This has nothing to do with “rules” or criminal justice. It’s about being very careful about not giving or appearing to give ANY kind of a pass to a very bad actor. That’s important. Because there are LOTS of people in this world who will NOT understand nuance.
So, sure, one analyzes Putin (or Hitler’s) motivations WHILE being extremely careful about not giving the impression of sympathy, equivalency, etc. Not complicated stuff.
So what's your point? That we have to more concerned about the optics of examining our enemy's motivation? I guess I agree with that, but it's kind of a non sequitur.
There's a difference between trying to understand someone's motivations and endorsing those motivations.
Why do people not get that?
In this context, 'understand' is most often meant to imply being partially sympathetic toward and granting justification for. It implies that the action is rational and reasonable.'
'I don't agree with it, but I understand why he did it.'
There's a reason Hitler scholars don't often say "I understand why Hitler did it."
"I understand why Ted Bundy did what he did," is not something you are going to hear from most people.
Most people understand this. Maybe you don't.
You obviously do not understand the "rational actor" analysis in the study of national security strategy.
You, like so many, simply don’t properly understand analogies. This has nothing to do with “rules” or criminal justice. It’s about being very careful about not giving or appearing to give ANY kind of a pass to a very bad actor. That’s important. Because there are LOTS of people in this world who will NOT understand nuance.
So, sure, one analyzes Putin (or Hitler’s) motivations WHILE being extremely careful about not giving the impression of sympathy, equivalency, etc. Not complicated stuff.
So what's your point? That we have to more concerned about the optics of examining our enemy's motivation? I guess I agree with that, but it's kind of a non sequitur.
It seems not to be a non-sequitur for you. You’ve complained about an intolerance for nuance, while suggesting that perhaps you don’t understand that nuance can be lost on many, this sending a signal other than one would want. So, one is extra careful about how you discuss some things. It’s not about optics. It’s simply about very careful communication.
Stop it with the killing civilians propaganda. Every military in combat does it. The military come from the people. If parents, siblings and cousins of military personnel are against their nation's war effort and believe surrender is a logical solution, military and political leaders follow the lead of the people. When didn't U.S. intentionally kill civilians? U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fire bombed German cities, German civilians WW2 to degrade the fighting spirit. U.S. heavy bombers intentionally fired bombed civilians, Japan, WW2. In Viet Nam, U.S. Burned the Villages in Order to Save the Villages.
You know that things can change, right? Your most recent example is from a war 50 years ago. Since at least the Gulf War - and certainly in AFG and Iraq - the US has gone to great lengths to reduce civilian casualties. Any where near perfect? Nope. But in the majority of cases, tries quite hard. Very easy for me to believe that Putin is far, far less concerned about it.
Reports from U.S. media, Russia has lost thousands of ground forces. Most likely not accurate but Putin/Russia admit that Russia has lost hundreds of ground troops. More likely than not, Putin/Russia sent infantry troops into apartment complex from where Ukrainian guerrillas fight &/or from where Ukrainian guerrillas reside. Obviously than did not work. U.S. at times are willing to send in squad or platoon of special forces or regular infantry personnel to capture/kill guerillas. If it doesn't work out, U.S. has and will bomb the entire apartment complex. Difference, U.S. military will give a narrative to their media contacts and explain why apartment building was bombed. You are a sucker for U.S. media narrative. Why would Russia randomly bomb an apartment complex? If Russian military are correct or not, most likely Russian military believe Ukrainian guerrillas are in apartment complex. Do not forget, bombing stops if Ukraine surrenders.
You know that things can change, right? Your most recent example is from a war 50 years ago. Since at least the Gulf War - and certainly in AFG and Iraq - the US has gone to great lengths to reduce civilian casualties. Any where near perfect? Nope. But in the majority of cases, tries quite hard. Very easy for me to believe that Putin is far, far less concerned about it.
Why would Russia randomly bomb an apartment complex?
He did the same in Syria and Chechnya. It's his M.O. to create civilian terror and flush out resistance. The Germans did the same in WWII.
This is extremely, mind-blowingly ludicrous and insane, but also important. It may blow your Western minds, but millions upon millions of Russians have internalized this worldview. In fact, this requires a 🧵 to explain what exactly many Russians feel they need to fight for... https://t.co/48p2H4IQQJ
Long story short, Putin is still feeling the impacts of losing the Cold War, and now he's got Ukraine, a former puppet state rather brazenly showing that they'd rather align with Western culture than the Russian/proto-Soviet mindset of church and country.
This can't stand if Putin wants to rebuild the Empire. So he's crushing it, while simultaneously crushing dissent from his own people.
He's deluded and absolutely a clown who is on his way out to end up in exile somewhere, but that's what's happening.
