Russia and Ukraine

[The Grand Nudger]

Vlad the great already made it clear that your explanation for his invasion of ukraine is horseshit.

Is he a part of the conspiracy of caring too, you reckon?

[Irreligious Atheist]

Idk how good Noam Chomsky's name is going to be at laundering your collective obsessions.  What metaphoric wall do you think russias back is against?

Back up against the wall as in if they are facing the prospect of losing, which they don't want to do obviously. It's a common expression used in the English language. I don't know what else you're looking for.

I like how you have neo-con views on the wars in the middle east and Ukraine, and of course you want to stay in Afghanistan for 200 plus more years and are delusional enough to think that the US had the Taliban defeated when the Afghan military either ran or joined the Taliban within days and took over the country, which would have happened either now or in 200 years, because the people of Afghanistan have no fight in them and are content being ruled by the Taliban. Chomsky's position on middle eastern wars and Ukraine is about as far left as you can get. I like how being against a war between two nuclear armed super powers in Russia and the US is now Nazism to you and calls for the invoking of the 3rd reich by you. Got em again Nudge! Slightly less childish than calling me a pee pee sucker for not following the George W Bush policy of you're either with us or you're against us like a couple other posters did, I suppose.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

(bold mine)

Well, we fought a world war over a useless slab of Austrian royalty. Ukraine is significantly more important (on several levels).

Boru

So that's why we want to.. air quotes.. help Ukraine? Because of the geo-political interests involved, and not because we care so much about Ukrainian lives like Western media is telling me? That's why Putin invaded in the first place and has killed tens of thousands. Because of your geo-political goals and poking at the bear. And WW3 might be a whole other ball of wax than previous world wars. We have a nuclear armed world now and mutually assured destruction in nuclear warfare is not an idea to just scoff at.

How would the US like it if one of the countries on their border, Mexico or Canada, turned anti-American and became top allies with Russia or were pro-China but anti-America?

Yes, that’s exactly why - geopolitics. Whatever the stated reasons given out for public consumption, wars are ALWAYS political (Clausewitz). There are no exceptions. This is something informed people know.

And as much as I respect Chomsky, he’s fallen down the rabbit hole of thinking that each and every European conflict is going to trigger a world war. Out if the hundreds of armed European conflicts, three have become global. Three.

Could Russia use nukes in Europe? Possible, but not very likely. Putin is clever enough to grasp that Russia could never beat NATO in either a conventional or nuclear conflict, and that the consequences for Russia would be far, far worse than for the alliance.

As for your scenario of Mexico or Canada aligning with Russia, I doubt very much that the US would like it, but I doubt even more that the US would launch a military invasion in response. The Americans tend to focus more on economic power (or ‘bribery’ if you prefer that term) these days to get their way in the world.

Boru

[Peebothuhlu]

Must admit.

It's pretty shity of an 'Excuse' to say "Oh.. We'd better let this country invade that country because we wouldn't want that country to have to use nuclear weapons because the agressive country seems to not be getting thier way.

 

Not at work.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ofc I have neocon views man…..? My neocon views, however, don’t have much to do with putins massive fuckup in Ukraine. The plain truth that Putin himself has explained is that he had ambitions for Russia that don’t include an independent ukraine. If we wanted to use that common English expression more correctly, it’s invading ukraine that puts Russia’s back against a wall, not losing. Definitively losing some flashy tv ready battle would be a mercy. They could blame it on the quality of their separatist conscripts, and suggest that if those people won’t fight for themselves-then Russia can no longer support them directly. Theyve already laid down a slime trail of propaganda for this.

[The Grand Nudger]

@boru

Bribery is just warfare without the middle men.

[Irreligious Atheist]

So that's why we want to.. air quotes.. help Ukraine? Because of the geo-political interests involved, and not because we care so much about Ukrainian lives like Western media is telling me? That's why Putin invaded in the first place and has killed tens of thousands. Because of your geo-political goals and poking at the bear. And WW3 might be a whole other ball of wax than previous world wars. We have a nuclear armed world now and mutually assured destruction in nuclear warfare is not an idea to just scoff at.

How would the US like it if one of the countries on their border, Mexico or Canada, turned anti-American and became top allies with Russia or were pro-China but anti-America?

Yes, that’s exactly why - geopolitics. Whatever the stated reasons given out for public consumption, wars are ALWAYS political (Clausewitz). There are no exceptions. This is something informed people know.

And as much as I respect Chomsky, he’s fallen down the rabbit hole of thinking that each and every European conflict is going to trigger a world war. Out if the hundreds of armed European conflicts, three have become global. Three.

Could Russia use nukes in Europe? Possible, but not very likely. Putin is clever enough to grasp that Russia could never beat NATO in either a conventional or nuclear conflict, and that the consequences for Russia would be far, far worse than for the alliance.

As for your scenario of Mexico or Canada aligning with Russia, I doubt very much that the US would like it, but I doubt even more that the US would launch a military invasion in response. The Americans tend to focus more on economic power (or ‘bribery’ if you prefer that term) these days to get their way in the world.

Boru

I completely agree that the war is about geopolitics. And I think the idea of Putin using nukes in Ukraine would be that he would be doing it under the impression that there's a good chance NATO wouldn't respond in kind by nuking Russia. As we saw in Japan, the nukes have the shock factor, but a couple of nukes wasn't necessarily as bad as the carpet bombing of cities just because they were nukes. Do we allow tens of thousands/ hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians or however many it would be die, and give Russia a pass after they've already dropped the nukes on Ukraine, to save the possible millions of lives that would die in a world war or massive nuclear exchange? It's a hard question. My solution.. well, Russia and Ukraine were in peace talks. The US and other countries have stepped in to stifle these talks, and yeah, I don't think that's a good thing. Giving in to Putin on this and making a peace deal doesn't mean he's going to get a big head and try to expand even further into Europe. It sucks that superpowers like Russia get to do bad shit without severe consequences, but sadly that's just the way the world works sometimes. Talk of "we shouldn't let the bully win" is basically just another way of saying "we have the bigger dicks so we should swing them and be the world police because we can", but like Chomsky says, it's a gamble. Is he overstating the risk of nuclear warfare? Probably, but I still don't want to make that gamble nonetheless.

[The Grand Nudger]

Russia won’t agree to ukraines terms. That’s the main problem with that. The notion that ukraine should negotiate away their own country so that you and Noam can sleep better at night is trash.

[Irreligious Atheist]

Russia won’t agree to ukraines terms.  That’s the main problem with that.  The notion that ukraine should negotiate away their own country so that you and Noam can sleep better at night is trash.

So we can sleep better at night, AND so tens of thousands less Ukrainians are killed in the war, AND so Russia doesn't possibly escalate the war even beyond what they have done. I'd like the Ukrainians to be able to sleep at night as well. And when I post what I'm about to post, I'm not questioning your toughness. You're tougher than I. But, it's pretty easy for Americans/ Westerners in general (not directed at you) to cheer on America's project and funding of a proxy war with Russia, when it's the Ukrainians that are suffering and dying fighting the war, and not the Americans and other Westerners. The Ukrainians are doing the dirty work of the Americans. The Ukrainians are the ones dying by the tens of thousands, and I don't like to see that.

All you are saying is basically, American exceptionalism. We have big cocks and it would be a shame to let that go to waste. Let's try to Americanize the entire earth and if anyone fails to submit to our commands, we're going to war with you or we'll do a proxy war between 2 nuclear armed powers, with the risks which that entails.

[Thumpalumpacus]

This is what war looks like.    We just chose to not show the receiving end when we have been gleefully and trumphalistically on the giving end.   Now we are shocked, absolutely shocked, that there is an receiving end when we are not even on the giving end.

How dare anyone blow innocent civilians up when it is not us and our cronies doing the blowing up!

How many Russian civilians have been killed by the Ukrainian military? Take your time looking it up ... I'll wait for an accurate answer.