|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
posted September 13, 2024 04:20 AM |
|
|
I think that it is worth questioning how this man (viewer discretion is advised) became president. And that the war is what currently keeps him in power given that his election term has expired.
Overall it is a complex geopolitical situation and neither side is an angel. However, the narrative being spun in the Western media is very one-sided and primitive. This makes any attempts at balancing the narrative sound pro-Russian.
One of the best metaphors I've come across is to imagine how USA would react if Mexico joined Russia's military defensive alliance, permitting the Russian military alliance to build bases and silos within Mexico, next door to US border. It is a revealing thought experiment.
It is good to see that some reasoned debate is taking place. One of the poorest and most desperate debate strategies is to deliberately exaggerate the other person's argument and to ridicule the exaggeration hoping that observers don't notice the difference between it and the person's actual argument. Intelligent readers can see what is going on. It would be good to have less of that and more of the good debate that is uncovering the different aspects of the complex geopolitical situation.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 08:55 AM |
|
|
Relativism is fine when you live on a different planet.
It's not when you are in the midth of it.
Here is a question for you relativists:
What do you think why the neutral countries of Finland and Sweden have decided to join NATO in the face of a Russian attack on Ukraine? Because they feel Russia is just preemptively securing their border? Because there have been pro-NATO coups in those countries?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 12:13 PM |
|
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 12:53 PM |
|
|
Valeriy said:
I think that it is worth questioning how this man (viewer discretion is advised) became president. And that the war is what currently keeps him in power given that his election term has expired.
Overall it is a complex geopolitical situation and neither side is an angel. However, the narrative being spun in the Western media is very one-sided and primitive. This makes any attempts at balancing the narrative sound pro-Russian.
One of the best metaphors I've come across is to imagine how USA would react if Mexico joined Russia's military defensive alliance, permitting the Russian military alliance to build bases and silos within Mexico, next door to US border. It is a revealing thought experiment.
It appears that Ukraine has long been caught in the middle as a proxy state. Under Zelensky, it’s often labeled a "U.S. puppet," seemingly as an alternative to becoming a "Russian puppet." I might be overstating things, but that’s the essence of it.
From what I’ve observed, Russian media isn’t any less biased or simplistic than Western media. Propaganda has always been a tool of war, and no side is immune to it.
As Ghost pointed out, a situation similar to your metaphor already played out during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, unsurprisingly, the U.S. didn’t take kindly to it.
____________
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 01:29 PM |
|
|
Valeriy said:
I think that it is worth questioning how this man (viewer discretion is advised) became president. And that the war is what currently keeps him in power given that his election term has expired.
Overall it is a complex geopolitical situation and neither side is an angel. However, the narrative being spun in the Western media is very one-sided and primitive. This makes any attempts at balancing the narrative sound pro-Russian.
One of the best metaphors I've come across is to imagine how USA would react if Mexico joined Russia's military defensive alliance, permitting the Russian military alliance to build bases and silos within Mexico, next door to US border. It is a revealing thought experiment.
A few remarks:
Regarding Zelenskyy, what are you trying to suggest? If you think he was instated by the US or something, what about the runner-up candidates, Poroshenko and Tymoshenko? Are they pro-Russian?
Maybe most Ukrainians just were fed up with Russia after they had infringed upon the Budapest memorandum in 2014.
"And that the war is what currently keeps him in power given that his election term has expired." - There you've got it. He wasn't all that popular prior to the war and propably would be out of office by now.
Putin dropped the ball. He could have had him out of office by just waiting. No need for any secret service stuff and most importantly without killing thousand of people amongst friend and foe, without the need to wreak havok.
Regarding Western media. There are pro-Russian media in the West, there are pro-Russian marches and all that jazz. It's just not that popular and many people take issue with it.
Now in Russia, are there media who side with Ukraine?
In the West you definitely won't find someone like Solovyov et al. suggesting to wipe Russia from the planet in mainstream media. It's not just unpopular, you'd have to face legal consequences for doing so and you'd be removed from your position
Your thought experiment has some issues. First off, Ukraine DID NOT join NATO and they were not about to do so anytime soon. They had been rejected and still did not meet legal requirements for joining. So they aren't quite comparable to Mexico in your metaphor.
Finland did join NATO though. What does that mean?
Secondly the US bases silo/thing is purely speculative, isn't it? I don't know of Russian statements from before the war stating their secret services had uncovered such plans and I don't know of any confirmation from the other side.
On top of that how does the base/silo thing present a new kind of threat?
Have NATO shown to be keen on invading Russia?
Have Russia or allies shown to be keen on invading the US?
For decades the US/Russia have been able to reach any point of Russian/US territory with intercontinental missiles. They don't need effing Ukraine or Mexico for a potential war.
In case of Mexico it's a thought experiment, in case of Ukraine we know Russia opted for war.
Let's assume that threat situation was real for now. Can we not just agree that war should be avoided at all cost?
Russia could have made use of VERY STRONG economical measures like stopping any kind of oil/gas delivery to Ukraine (or whoever else), like blocking Ukraine's ports, like blocking Ukraine's airspace YET THEY OPTED FOR WAR.
There's no excuses I'll accept for that.
Do you remember how European leaders sought to persuade Putin out of the war? At that iconic 5 metre long table? And how Putin conceded and said like "Sure, don't be worried, we'll find a solution both sides can agree on"
Days later Russian troops invaded Ukraine. How should anyone he tuned his back on ever trust Putin again?
He's left behind a complete mess.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 01:33 PM |
|
|
Galaad said:
As Ghost pointed out, a situation similar to your metaphor already played out during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and, unsurprisingly, the U.S. didn’t take kindly to it.
Well, they did not invade Cuba.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 01:56 PM |
|
|
Only because Russia wisely accepted to step back. Let's also remember that the US, however, sent an armed force, in 1961, to overthrown the Castro government, precisely because supposed ties with Russia.
____________
Era II mods and utilities
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 02:11 PM |
|
|
OK, let's keep comparing with events dating back 60 years.
Ukraine could not have wisely stepped back seeing as there was no pending NATO membership bid they could withdraw from.
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 02:19 PM |
|
|
|
The Monroe doctrine is 200 years old, yet still in use. One can't understand world conflicts if looking from his living room, that precise day and minute only.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 09:44 PM |
|
|
FYI, the Russians got something for removing the missiles from Cuba as well. Unbeknownst to the public NATO (US) removed missiles from Turkey in exhange.
You know, they TALKED and the result was the red phone, the direct line between the USSR and the US.
I'd rather have Krushchev than Putin in charge.
And are we now discussing whether a government leaning to this or that country or alliance is reason enough to declare war on them? Then how come Cuba is still, well, Cuba?
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. I think, that's what you consider an act of war, aren't you?
|
|
gnollking
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 13, 2024 11:29 PM |
|
|
Valeriy said:
I think that it is worth questioning how this man (viewer discretion is advised) became president.
This is a joke, right? Are presidents not allowed to have a normal life outside of/before their political duties?
____________
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 10:46 AM |
|
|
A normal life is possible. But here life is clearly abnormal - this video is for morons. The same can be said about the video where Zelensky plays the piano with his penis. Well, there are a lot of videos where Zelensky is under the influence of substances - this is also an abnormal life. And the requirements for the head of state in this regard have been increased. Even if something is wrong, it is better not to advertise it. This is one of the problems of Europeans - everything there has degraded so much that they don’t even understand it.
Or take Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Well, you like to drink or provide intimate services to men - but you don’t need to advertise it if you are the Prime Minister. It is obvious that she is from the cohort of new young “politicians” who are professionally unsuitable and are completely transferring power over their country to external control.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 11:14 AM |
|
|
How low can you get? You're trying to outweigh starting a war with being "not normal".
So you fell for that piano joke?
Tell me what's "normal" and what is not by whose standards
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 11:19 AM |
|
|
|
People thousands of years ago established what is normal and what is not. Let's say you want to expand the range of "good". Will you be happy if guests come to your home and poop on the table?
|
|
Ben80
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 11:28 AM |
|
|
|
Let's say you don't like it. And they will like it. They will say that they only wanted the best for you and it’s not their fault that you have such bad taste. The same thing, for example, with LGBT, which is imposed on normal people.
|
|
gatecrasher
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 01:41 PM |
|
|
Is the rude behavoiur male Russian tourists drunk as lord display "normal"?
Is it "normal" to revel in plans for large-scale homicide just like Solovyev er al. and many other Russian officials do?
Is invading other countries normal?
I'm not LGBTQ myself and no I'm in no way forced to become transgender or whatever. So war in Ukraine is OK so they geht back to normal?
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 02:52 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 15:08, 14 Sep 2024.
|
JollyJoker said:
FYI, the Russians got something for removing the missiles from Cuba as well. Unbeknownst to the public NATO (US) removed missiles from Turkey in exhange.
You know, they TALKED and the result was the red phone, the direct line between the USSR and the US.
I'd rather have Krushchev than Putin in charge.
And are we now discussing whether a government leaning to this or that country or alliance is reason enough to declare war on them? Then how come Cuba is still, well, Cuba?
Russia annexed Crimea in 2014. I think, that's what you consider an act of war, aren't you?
Right! You read Cuban missile crisis..
Yes the USA can't allow missiles in Cuba this today day.. If I understood English text, but you already saw Krushchev.. Remember they tried buff, and resulting disarmament from Cuba, Turkey and Italy.. Today Putin "knows" how to negotiate with the Kaliningrad missile.. But Putin failed from Ukraine..
Yes it started 2008..
@Salamandre
For such a long time.. I don't know if normal, but the teacher asked the same thing.. I answered the clock.. Right! The priest friend told and asked me a comparison picture/image but an old.. I answered to priest friend, what the teacher asked.. Possibly the priest friend said.. Ok aha Monroe word/term.. So in Finland, we already know about the debate.. Deep, I don't remember.. But the question is pretending..
|
|
Ghost
Undefeatable Hero
Therefore I am
|
|
posted September 14, 2024 04:46 PM |
|
Edited by Ghost at 17:02, 14 Sep 2024.
|
Ben80 said:
Or take Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin. Well, you like to drink or provide intimate services to men - but you don’t need to advertise it if you are the Prime Minister. It is obvious that she is from the cohort of new young “politicians” who are professionally unsuitable and are completely transferring power over their country to external control.
Wrong, Marin left the job due to Orpo and Purra.. And Marin has permission for free time.. I haven't a problem.. See other countries! Why did Yeltsin drink vodka with the American president in the sauna? Some say inappropriate wine at the event.. Example France offers expensive wine at the expense of the people.. But if Finnish hemp party gets into Finnish parliament.. Marijuana-intoxicated! What are you talking about Finland? Not from Holland, Germany etc so normal.. Enough now 
|
|
Valeriy
Mage of the Land
Naughty, Naughty Valeriy
|
|
posted September 15, 2024 09:15 AM |
|
|
I'm not sure if absolutism is the answer. For example if someone is a pacifist, and their country is being invaded, are they a relativist for fighting and killing the invaders? Of course there are different extents of relativism, but who decides which is the correct extent?
I doubt that Finland and Sweden joining Nato is a simple one-variable decision, there are probably many factors involved. I don't know whether the most obvious factor is the sole cause, or the straw that broke the camel's back, or if there are other influences or incentives at play.
Russian media certainly does it's own side's propaganda. Looking at the media from both sides is a better way of getting closer to the truth. Plus looking at alternative sources that offer deeper historical and geopolitical analysis.
I live in the West and I must say that Russian media more often tries to appeal more to the intellect, while Western media tries to appeal more to emotion. Neither media is pure.
It was interesting to see how the Western media and the USA spoke one way about Russia invading Ukraine and a totally different way about Israel invading Gaza beyond the initial counter-attack.
Now USA is sanctioning RT to "protect democracy". I find the stated reason amusing (and once again an appeal to emotion) because democracy itself (government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives) is not damaged by an alternative media outlet presenting false information.
From what I understand Putin was a KGB agent in his past and the departing president publicly recommended him for office. Zelensky was an actor, comedian and entertainer in his past. According to CNN, Zelensky acted a role of a president in a TV show and within a month of the show's finale he was somehow actually elected president. Maybe some people won't find that strange at all, but it does align suspiciously well with certain theories about his rise to power.
I do agree that war should be avoided whenever possible and I am not saying that I would have made the same choices as either of the leaders. I’m a distant observer examining different facets of a complex situation and not believing the simplistic portrayal being pushed by the media.
I find it strange that Zelensky prohibited peace negotiations with Russia and that his own peace proposal was absolutely ridiculous - everything for his side, absolutely nothing for the other side. No one negotiates like that when they want to make any kind of deal. People only negotiate like that when they don’t want a deal.
Crimea was a Russian territory given to the Ukraine in 1954 during the times of USSR under Khrushchev, who had strong ties to Ukraine. Russia and Ukraine were like integrated states of the same super-country at the time, so the transfer was likely more symbolic. Those who lived in USSR will have a better understanding of the governance and mentality, but it’s not exactly comparable to something like US government moving a territory from one US state to another.
When the regime under which this gift was given (USSR) collapsed this gift was not cancelled. The collapse of the union was rather chaotic. The gift was effectively taken back later. We can debate the means and validity of taking it back, but that’s the history behind it.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2024 11:02 AM |
|
|
That is a nonsensical post, Admin. It touts a lot of nonsense, for example that truth is relative, as in, if there are two sides and they tell different stories truth must be somehow in the middle. That is blatantly false. In fact, this idea is the root of fake news evil because that's why they are so effective, like, where there is smoke there must be a fire.
Not true, though. If Donald Trump says, Haitians catch pets and slaughter and eat them, he has seen it in TV, and someone who should know about that ssays, there are no reports indicating that, not one, then the truth isn't somewhere in the middle. The truth isn't that a few dark-skinned people, maybe Haitians, maybe of other origin caught and slaughtered and ate a few pets. The truth is - it's made up.
The Russian media? I would trust them as much as I would haave trusted the German "Wochenschau" in the time of WW 2 - they serve a purpose: to sell something to the people that watch and listen.
And since someone brought up "normal". "Normal" is that people do bad, insane things because they CAN. And WANT to. If they are not stopped.
Personally, I think, all these things tend to get very bad very fast. With Netanyahu massively under pressure due to his push to less democracy, it was pretty clear he'd go for an attack. It was also pretty clear that the victims would start to pile, once they Israelis would start to waltz through Gaza. If you cut with a big blunt instrument there will always be collateral damage. Netanyahu has been doing this kind of crap because he can - no one is stopping him. Ut's the opposition in Israel that should have been making demands on doing this a bit less barbaric, but they pretty much rolled over immediately and gave him free reign, probably fearing of being called traitors to Israel otherwise. If your country suffers from a terror attack with hundreds or eeven thousands of dead people, "reason" is flying out of the window fast (which is the whole purpose of these attacks in addition to the feeling of satisfaction they will cause with the backers and funders.
Same with Russia and Ukraine. See, Putin wanted to get thee "Spacial Operation" done fast. March into Kyev, do away with the government, install a new one. Make that accept the annexations and "new independent countries", get out fast and be done with all that within a few weeks, say, a month. While the world is still holding their collective breath. Then rinse and repeat somewhere else - or not, depending. let's see.
However, since the Russian military leaders are extremely corrupt and put money in their own pockets instead of putting it into the army, the army wasn't up to the task. And only when the West realized that, they started to react and offered to help Russia. Initially, they thought as well Kyev would fall fast and no one could stop that.
And at that point Putin should have backed out again. Said sorry. Shot all the Generals who told him bull. Cut off his pinkie, Yakuza-style ("I screwed up trusting these idiots. Mea culpa.") Made an effort to cement Ukraine's status quo.
But he's too stubborn to simply fold at a time where he hadn't committed a lot to the pot and no one else had either. At this time the pot is pretty massive and folding gets more difficult with each day.
The Ukraine, on the other hand is stubborn as well - and with good reason. They want what is theirs - everything. And it's their right to do so. On the OTHER hand, the West ISN'T obliged to help them UNconditionally. So the West COULD demand from Ukraine (inofficially, of course) to enter peace negotiations with Russia under conditions deemed fair by them OR ELSE, and to convey this to Russia (and of course China and India).
As it is, things are escalating. Reasonable people seem to be in short supply everywhere - plus there are enough parties with an interest in a continuation of this struggle.
With all that said, STILL: It's RUSSIA who attacked Ukraine. Russia is the aggressor. Their main fault is, that they couldn't do what they intended to, and that's THEIR fault, not the West's. And THAT is, what Russia is currently bleeding for. They are like a pickpocket that got caught whith the hand still in the pocket. And at a guess I'd say THAT's what's infuriates Putin most of all.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
