Geopolitics (Too "Whataboutery" for Other Threads).

TMDaines

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
11,843

I think it's hard to predict what war will do (more resentment and hatred than before and less concern about being Nazis or being called Nazis if it promises revenge).
Christ, are you really wanting to suggest endorsement of this guy’s content? Take a look at his feed. He’s an absolute pro-Russia, Putin apologist. Literally everything on there for days is trying to construct an image of the Ukrainian government and people as far right fascists wanting to destroy Russia.

Some of the shit you share on here is getting concerning.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
Christ, are you really wanting to suggest endorsement of this guy’s content? Take a look at his feed. He’s an absolute pro-Russia, Putin apologist. Literally everything on there for days is trying to construct an image of the Ukrainian government and people as far right fascists wanting to destroy Russia.

Some of the shit you share on here is getting concerning.
No, I'm suggesting that you consider the fact contained within the tweet. Source it elsewhere if the publisher is against your principles. People's inability to take proven facts on their own merit is concerning (the same people who claim "whataboutism" is a legitimate means of shutting down a debate, usually: "what about the person, forget about the claim [which is entirely factual and uncontroversial]"). Surprisingly, I don't endorse the private opinions of every twitter user whose tweets I share.
 

RedTiger

Half mast
Joined
Oct 6, 2013
Messages
21,573
Location
Beside the sea-side, Beside the sea.
Christ, are you really wanting to suggest endorsement of this guy’s content? Take a look at his feed. He’s an absolute pro-Russia, Putin apologist. Literally everything on there for days is trying to construct an image of the Ukrainian government and people as far right fascists wanting to destroy Russia.

Some of the shit you share on here is getting concerning.
@Mciahel Goodman wasn't endorsing the Twitter guy, rather he was sharing what is being said on Ukrainian television. I mean, that was a genuine Ukrainian broadcast was it not?
 

TMDaines

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
11,843
No, I'm suggesting that you consider the fact contained within the tweet. Source it elsewhere if the publisher is against your principles. People's inability to take proven facts on their own merit is concerning (the same people who claim "whataboutism" is a legitimate means of shutting down a debate, usually: "what about the person, forget about the claim [which is entirely factual and uncontroversial]"). Surprisingly, I don't endorse the private opinions of every twitter user whose tweets I share.
What fact? If you take the dregs of TV, especially during wartime when emotions are heightened, you can construct a false narrative? It’s like cherry picking the worst of GB News to paint an overall negative picture of the British people.

You might as well just post the various claims of Russia Today and the various Russian embassies at this point at supposedly face value, and then duck behind “retweets are not endorsements” of either the content or the author when challenged on your agenda.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
This is one thing I fear about Ukraine in the future, it's never a good idea to strengthen extremist groups. Many examples of this biting back when things settle down.

Giving power and authority to Azov's, from 2014, can be dangerous in the future because it's not as if after the war is over they will go back to the periphery, they had large marches down Kiev. Not only the Azovs, but also glorifying right-wing separtists who fought against the Soviet Union, but also sided with the Nazi's and murdered Jews, in a way to reduce the influence of Russia and references to the past Soviet Union.

The US weaponized the Islamist extremists in Afghanistan in the 80's and then Syria in the 2010's, both lead to radical groups being created (Al-Qaeda/Taliban and ISIS) that caused terror in the world. Even for Pakistan, our current prime minister sided with an Islamist party to win election votes and now that party is causing a rise in extremism in the country.

You have to try to save your country, but there are dangerous limits you should not cross because it can lead to more trouble problems.
How much power and authority does Azov have though? They're a national guard gendarmerie, a civilian volunteer type of force, not regular army. Managing them post conflict should be easy enough.

The best thing about neo-nazis is that they align themselves with nazis and because of this are completely unpalatable to the vast majority of people. They also tend to be dumb, not least because they hold nazi ideals, and these factors impact their ability to gain mainstream acceptance. They simply have not been successful post WWII in advancing their cause because of all the shitty things the NSDAP did will never be forgotten. Ukraine is a bit of a special case because historically they have grievances with Russia so when the nazis am through in the 1940s they were welcomed but as noted, the end of WWII laid bare all the sins of nazism and because of this widespread acceptance of nazi ideals is never going to happen.
Might be harder than you think. He tried to bring them to heel once and was told to feck off.




Zelensky's main patron is also up to his neck in funding of the Azov and various other far-right Ukrainian militias. It's clearly a relationship of convenience, but I don't see these people (however much a minority) fading into the background post-War.
To be fair despite the Minsk agreement, Ukraine and Russia have been essentially in conflict since 2014. Azov is a big part of that. They might not fade away but I can't see them growing in prominence like black and brown shirts in the 1930s moving from paramilitary groups to political parties to forming governments and consolidating power in a dictator.

I think it's hard to predict what war will do (more resentment and hatred than before and less concern about being Nazis or being called Nazis if it promises revenge).
Christ, are you really wanting to suggest endorsement of this guy’s content? Take a look at his feed. He’s an absolute pro-Russia, Putin apologist. Literally everything on there for days is trying to construct an image of the Ukrainian government and people as far right fascists wanting to destroy Russia.

Some of the shit you share on here is getting concerning.
No, I'm suggesting that you consider the fact contained within the tweet. Source it elsewhere if the publisher is against your principles. People's inability to take proven facts on their own merit is concerning (the same people who claim "whataboutism" is a legitimate means of shutting down a debate, usually: "what about the person, forget about the claim [which is entirely factual and uncontroversial]"). Surprisingly, I don't endorse the private opinions of every twitter user whose tweets I share.
You might as well just post the various claims of Russia Today and the various Russian embassies at this point at supposedly face value, and then duck behind “retweets are not endorsements” of either the content or the author when challenged on your agenda.
There's your context within which a single tweet from some guy you know more about than I do was relevant. If you want to argue for the sake of it, try someone else.


@Mciahel Goodman wasn't endorsing the Twitter guy, rather he was sharing what is being said on Ukrainian television. I mean, that was a genuine Ukrainian broadcast was it not?
Yeah, I have no idea who the guy is for a start and don't actually care. The video was the point in the context of the above discussion.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
9,832
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
With regards to Ukraine: I follow this thread but I'm conflicted and there's some confusion here it seems. Does Mearsheimer specifically say that Ukraine should have no agency of their own? Or only that Ukraine's behavior (encouraged by the West) would lead to Russia invading them, irregardless of morality? In other words, what does Mearsheimer specifically say?
The point is not so much that Ukraine should not have agency, but that actions have consequences. In this case: if Ukraine decides to flirt with joining NATO, it will anger Russia to the point of an invasion. That doesn't mean Ukraine can't make this decision, but Mearsheimer would consider it a wrong one given the damage a Russian invasion would do, and something leaders in Ukraine and NATO should have steered Ukraine away from through clear and strong messaging to the Ukrainian population.
Some examples of his wiki:
  • Accurately assessed how the first Gulf War would go (quick and decisive US victory).
  • Foresaw Israel turning into an apartheid state more and more.
  • Foresaw increasingly aggressive Chinese-American competition.
  • Foresaw Russian aggression towards Ukraine.
By the way, great contributions to this thread by many posters.
It depends a bit on the timing of the predictions, but apart from the Ukraine one, these were pretty obvious, no? I also don't know what Mearsheimer's success percentage is.

Also, in the Ukraine case: the argument seems to be very focused on NATO, but as e.g. @oneniltothearsenal argued in the last few pages, that might be a very limited view. Ukraine is the last former Warsaw Pact or USSR country in Europe that isn't in NATO, and thus Russia's last chance to have wider influence on its western side. (Well, there's Moldova and Transnistria, but they're tiny. And Georgia if you consider it European.)

Ukraine may well have been in Russia's crosshairs anyway if it didn't follow Russia's political and economical path - which is a very poor outlook for any country and perhaps well worth suffering this war for. (Without meaning to diminish the enormous death and hurt and damage it's causing!) Then there's the unknown of Putin's personal convictions: has he really become a crazy megalomaniac or is this still brutal calculation thickly coated in nationalistic messaging?

Both aspects in my understanding are beyond Mearsheimer's geopolitical projections - which is why e.g. @Raoul keeps saying that realists consider a too limited set of factors in their geopolitical thinking. Ultimately, that would mean that Mearsheimer may have arrived at the right conclusion almost accidentially through incomplete arguments.
People who oppose Mearsheimer deal entirely in hypothetical scenarios "what ifs". Would the US have invaded if Cuba didn't overthrow Batista? I doubt it because they would have had no reason to (their interests being fully served by Batista's regime). The same principle holds with Russia. Why invade if Ukraine is not breaking with you and courting a different military bloc (with that bloc also making advances)? It doesn't invade Belarus except to prop up the dictator who serves their interests.
But that cuts both ways, as Mearsheimer employs a 'what if' as well when he says that (the threat of) NATO expansion caused the invasion of Ukraine - cause the implication is that there would have been no invasion without it. I don't think I agree with that.
Also, it's been mentioned in this thread already but the entire premise for the continuation of NATO post-USSR became Russia. So Ukraine wanted to join a military bloc whose sole existence is predicated upon opposing/containing Russia. To say that has no effect whatsoever (not even a little) upon Russia's invasion makes little sense to me.
The problem is that the concept of joining NATO to some extent becomes a proxy for 'turning west'. You're right that NATO continues to exist because of Russia; but if all those Warsaw Pact and USSR countries had not joined NATO but had still become a part of the EU, I think chances are that Russia under Putin would still have invaded Ukraine if it had started flirting with becoming an EU country as well.

Plus again, this works both ways. NATO continues to exist because of Russia, but that's also because Russia continues to position itself in a way that makes countries want to have a NATO and become its member. In that sense, you could consider this relationship a kind of vicious cycle - although I do think I would put most of the blame for that dynamic, at least since about 2000, with Russia. I mean, what would Russia have lost if they had just ignored NATO and had taken on a much less aggressive tone overall, thus breaking the cycle?

But I would also suggest that the US (and maybe other countries) is probably very happy with this dynamic, as NATO is an important way to maintain its sphere of influence. So if Russia would have employed a very different international rhetoric, the US might have looked for ways to demonize it anyway - ultimately leaving Russia no choice but to take up the other position again and becoming part of that NATO-reinforcing dynamic again.
 

TMDaines

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
11,843
@Mciahel Goodman wasn't endorsing the Twitter guy, rather he was sharing what is being said on Ukrainian television. I mean, that was a genuine Ukrainian broadcast was it not?
There's your context within which a single tweet from some guy you know more about than I do was relevant. If you want to argue for the sake of it, try someone else.
If you hadn’t just parroted the out-of-context truncated smear of a Putin apologist, you might have actually shared the fuller clip of this broadcast that shows the presenter breaking down on air whilst reporting on the death of one his friends, immediately before commencing on this badly misjudged rant in an emotional state. You might have also shared the fact that the broadcaster also apologised for his diatribe when next on the air, reflecting that he fell short of both himself as a person and a journalist. You might have also shared that the director of the network too apologised.

Finally, you might have also verified the translation actually fairly represents the sentiment of his rant, which is far more along the lines of “If we were the Nazis (you claim we are), I would (therefore) follow the doctrine of Eichmann (and this is what I would do)” rather than actually presenting himself as a Nazi and an adherent of Eichmann.

It was a stupid thing to say and clearly has provided plenty of ammunition for the usual RT-parrots and Russian official Twitter accounts today, but they are obviously not interested in providing the fuller story.

And not that it really changes the morality of this, but the presenter in question isn’t even understood to be Ukrainian. According to the network, he’s an Afghan national who studied in Ukraine and has now commenced his career there. That seems like pretty important context when trying to pour more fuel on the “Ukrainians are Nazis” bonfire.
 
Last edited:

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
The point is not so much that Ukraine should not have agency, but that actions have consequences. In this case: if Ukraine decides to flirt with joining NATO, it will anger Russia to the point of an invasion. That doesn't mean Ukraine can't make this decision, but Mearsheimer would consider it a wrong one given the damage a Russian invasion would do, and something leaders in Ukraine and NATO should have steered Ukraine away from through clear and strong messaging to the Ukrainian population.

It depends a bit on the timing of the predictions, but apart from the Ukraine one, these were pretty obvious, no? I also don't know what Mearsheimer's success percentage is.

Also, in the Ukraine case: the argument seems to be very focused on NATO, but as e.g. @oneniltothearsenal argued in the last few pages, that might be a very limited view. Ukraine is the last former Warsaw Pact or USSR country in Europe that isn't in NATO, and thus Russia's last chance to have wider influence on its western side. (Well, there's Moldova and Transnistria, but they're tiny. And Georgia if you consider it European.)

Ukraine may well have been in Russia's crosshairs anyway if it didn't follow Russia's political and economical path - which is a very poor outlook for any country and perhaps well worth suffering this war for. (Without meaning to diminish the enormous death and hurt and damage it's causing!) Then there's the unknown of Putin's personal convictions: has he really become a crazy megalomaniac or is this still brutal calculation thickly coated in nationalistic messaging?

Both aspects in my understanding are beyond Mearsheimer's geopolitical projections - which is why e.g. @Raoul keeps saying that realists consider a too limited set of factors in their geopolitical thinking. Ultimately, that would mean that Mearsheimer may have arrived at the right conclusion almost accidentially through incomplete arguments.

But that cuts both ways, as Mearsheimer employs a 'what if' as well when he says that (the threat of) NATO expansion caused the invasion of Ukraine - cause the implication is that there would have been no invasion without it. I don't think I agree with that.

The problem is that the concept of joining NATO to some extent becomes a proxy for 'turning west'. You're right that NATO continues to exist because of Russia; but if all those Warsaw Pact and USSR countries had not joined NATO but had still become a part of the EU, I think chances are that Russia under Putin would still have invaded Ukraine if it had started flirting with becoming an EU country as well.

Plus again, this works both ways. NATO continues to exist because of Russia, but that's also because Russia continues to position itself in a way that makes countries want to have a NATO and become its member. In that sense, you could consider this relationship a kind of vicious cycle - although I do think I would put most of the blame for that dynamic, at least since about 2000, with Russia. I mean, what would Russia have lost if they had just ignored NATO and had taken on a much less aggressive tone overall, thus breaking the cycle?

But I would also suggest that the US (and maybe other countries) is probably very happy with this dynamic, as NATO is an important way to maintain its sphere of influence. So if Russia would have employed a very different international rhetoric, the US might have looked for ways to demonize it anyway - ultimately leaving Russia no choice but to take up the other position again and becoming part of that NATO-reinforcing dynamic again.
Very well reasoned post and I agree with most of it (cutting both ways). It does begin to take on tautological resonances the more you think about it. I would say, to conclude the gist of what historiography has been provided by people in this thread, that you can blame Putin/Russia absolutely for the invasion and hold the opinion that spheres of influence played a part without that being a mutually excluding premise.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
If you hadn’t just parroted the out-of-context truncated smear of a Putin apologist, you might have actually shared the fuller clip of this broadcast that shows the presenter breaking down on air whilst reporting on the death of one his friends, immediately before commencing on this badly misjudged rant in an emotional state. You might have also shared the fact that the broadcaster also apologised for his diatribe when next on the air, reflecting that he fell short of both himself as a person and a journalist.

Finally, you might have also verified the translation actually fairly represents the sentiment of his rant, which is far more along the lines of “If we were the Nazis (you claim we are), I would (therefore) follow the doctrine of Eichmann (and this is what I would do)” rather than actually presenting himself as a Nazi and an adherent of Eichmann.

It was a stupid thing to say and clearly has provided plenty of ammunition for the usual RT-parrots and Russian official Twitter accounts today, but they are obviously not interested in providing the fuller story.
Maybe. I wasn't aware that there was a fuller clip. I wasn't vetting every single tweet that came up. I saw a video of a Ukrainian presenter with a picture of Eichmann seemingly no longer giving a feck if the world viewed Ukrainians as Nazis (something that is a minority problem, which I have always said in this thread) and thought that relevant to the idea of war being unpredictable (Dwayne's WWII rise of the blackshirts was the background, here). It wasn't intended to rile anyone up or paint a picture of all Ukrainians as Nazis or neo-Nazis (I've always said that it is clearly a minority problem, the Azov, and a problem which has to do with convenience insofar as Ukraine is fighting a civil war and now against an invasion and you won't turn down whatever fighters you think will help; the larger point being the scope of political reform of a marginal movement post-War). So I think this has been a genuine misunderstanding.
 

TMDaines

Full Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2014
Messages
11,843
Maybe. I wasn't aware that there was a fuller clip. I wasn't vetting every single tweet that came up. I saw a video of a Ukrainian presenter with a picture of Eichmann seemingly no longer giving a feck if the world viewed Ukrainians as Nazis (something that is a minority problem, which I have always said in this thread) and thought that relevant to the idea of war being unpredictable (Dwayne's WWII rise of the blackshirts was the background, here). It wasn't intended to rile anyone up or paint a picture of all Ukrainians as Nazis or neo-Nazis (I've always said that it is clearly a minority problem, the Azov, and a problem which has to do with convenience insofar as Ukraine is fighting a civil war and now against an invasion and you won't turn down whatever fighters you think will help; the larger point being the scope of political reform of a marginal movement post-War). So I think this has been a genuine misunderstanding.
Fair enough. I am just highly sensitive to many of the bad faith actors on Twitter now, trying to push an angle with out of context content.

I wasn’t familiar with this clip either before you posted it, nor the Twitter user. However, once I saw the rest of the guy’s Twitter feed, it was a pretty strong hint that there might be even a bit of context missing, which quickly became apparent!
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
Fair enough. I am just highly sensitive to many of the bad faith actors on Twitter now, trying to push an angle with out of context content.

I wasn’t familiar with this clip either before you posted it, nor the Twitter user. However, once I saw the rest of the guy’s Twitter feed, it was a pretty strong hint that there might be even a bit of context missing, which quickly became apparent!
Yeah, that's fair enough. Thanks for adding the above context.
 

Cheimoon

Made of cheese
Scout
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
9,832
Location
Canada
Supports
no-one in particular
Very well reasoned post and I agree with most of it (cutting both ways). It does begin to take on tautological resonances the more you think about it. I would say, to conclude the gist of what historiography has been provided by people in this thread, that you can blame Putin/Russia absolutely for the invasion and hold the opinion that spheres of influence played a part without that being a mutually excluding premise.
Yeah, I'm very much in favour of using multiple lenses through which to view almost any situation. I acknowledge that that might endlessly complicate things, and that it is useful to have models which necessarily through their very nature generalize (and thus simplify) things; but my instinctive reaction is always to shy away from them in favour of a more holistic picture. Until you bring in the wide picture or comparable situations and do need the generalization again - and now I'm fittingly even going in circles in my own post. :)
 

oneniltothearsenal

Caf's Milton Friedman and Arse Aficionado
Scout
Joined
Dec 17, 2013
Messages
10,121
Supports
Brazil, Arsenal,LA Aztecs
People who oppose Mearsheimer deal entirely in hypothetical scenarios "what ifs".
There have been a ton of posts since I've been able to read this thread and many respond to your points in the response to me so I'm just going to reply to this line.

I entered this thread solely because of a "what if" that Mearsheimer posed in that New Yorker interview. Namely that he believed if Ukraine was a liberal democracy that established close economic and social ties to the west and US but simply didn't make any moves to seek NATO/EU membership then Putin wouldn't have invaded and therefore the invasion is the US/NATO's fault. I find that view too reductionist and simply doesn't reflect the reality of Putin's words and actions.

I think to understand Putin, we have to look short-term and long-term at everything he's said and done. He's demonstrated he has a mercantilist view, has legacy ambitions, and is threatened by former Soviet states becoming liberal democracies more than he just wants to deter NATO. His words and actions since this invasion alone don't really support a view that he just wants to deter Ukraine joining NATO. I just don't see a game theory model that makes sense with stopping NATO expansion as his primary goal whereas I do see game theory models based on those other valuations of Putin's making much more sense. He wouldn't have sent his army into the positions he did, brought on the Chechens and now Syrian mercenaries and committed his string of war crimes if his only goal was to prevent NATO expansion because his actions have pushed more nations closer to NATO than they were before.

Anyway, I'm repeating myself and others have made good arguments and posted other links but just want to re-iterate that Mearsheimer is just as guilty as basing his argument on what-ifs as the people that disagree with him.
 

Bobcat

Full Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2014
Messages
6,168
Location
Behind the curtains, leering at the neighbors
The point is not so much that Ukraine should not have agency, but that actions have consequences. In this case: if Ukraine decides to flirt with joining NATO, it will anger Russia to the point of an invasion. That doesn't mean Ukraine can't make this decision, but Mearsheimer would consider it a wrong one given the damage a Russian invasion would do, and something leaders in Ukraine and NATO should have steered Ukraine away from through clear and strong messaging to the Ukrainian population.

It depends a bit on the timing of the predictions, but apart from the Ukraine one, these were pretty obvious, no? I also don't know what Mearsheimer's success percentage is.

Also, in the Ukraine case: the argument seems to be very focused on NATO, but as e.g. @oneniltothearsenal argued in the last few pages, that might be a very limited view. Ukraine is the last former Warsaw Pact or USSR country in Europe that isn't in NATO, and thus Russia's last chance to have wider influence on its western side. (Well, there's Moldova and Transnistria, but they're tiny. And Georgia if you consider it European.)

Ukraine may well have been in Russia's crosshairs anyway if it didn't follow Russia's political and economical path - which is a very poor outlook for any country and perhaps well worth suffering this war for. (Without meaning to diminish the enormous death and hurt and damage it's causing!) Then there's the unknown of Putin's personal convictions: has he really become a crazy megalomaniac or is this still brutal calculation thickly coated in nationalistic messaging?

Both aspects in my understanding are beyond Mearsheimer's geopolitical projections - which is why e.g. @Raoul keeps saying that realists consider a too limited set of factors in their geopolitical thinking. Ultimately, that would mean that Mearsheimer may have arrived at the right conclusion almost accidentially through incomplete arguments.

But that cuts both ways, as Mearsheimer employs a 'what if' as well when he says that (the threat of) NATO expansion caused the invasion of Ukraine - cause the implication is that there would have been no invasion without it. I don't think I agree with that.

The problem is that the concept of joining NATO to some extent becomes a proxy for 'turning west'. You're right that NATO continues to exist because of Russia; but if all those Warsaw Pact and USSR countries had not joined NATO but had still become a part of the EU, I think chances are that Russia under Putin would still have invaded Ukraine if it had started flirting with becoming an EU country as well.

Plus again, this works both ways. NATO continues to exist because of Russia, but that's also because Russia continues to position itself in a way that makes countries want to have a NATO and become its member. In that sense, you could consider this relationship a kind of vicious cycle - although I do think I would put most of the blame for that dynamic, at least since about 2000, with Russia. I mean, what would Russia have lost if they had just ignored NATO and had taken on a much less aggressive tone overall, thus breaking the cycle?

But I would also suggest that the US (and maybe other countries) is probably very happy with this dynamic, as NATO is an important way to maintain its sphere of influence. So if Russia would have employed a very different international rhetoric, the US might have looked for ways to demonize it anyway - ultimately leaving Russia no choice but to take up the other position again and becoming part of that NATO-reinforcing dynamic again.
Good post, but honestly i am convinced its the former. Considering the russian populace, not to mention a large part of the invading army was left in the dark for as long as possible, points to the former.

Also, the man has surrounded himself with sycophants and boot lickers for a decade now. Any dissidents gets removed or worse. That enviroment is going to give anyone a God complex.

Also consider the absoloutely hopeless situation here. Best case scenario for Putin he manages to defeat the Ukranian military quikly and they surrender. Then what? No one is going to buy his crackpot Nazi theories or any nonsense about "liberating them" so he only has one option which is subduing the country by brute force, which is going to take decades.

Its a mental plan hatched by a mental person
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
2,824
Location
Midwest, USA
The Georgia roadmap involved making that territory a quagmire because it wanted to join NATO. So if you mean creating a conflict and territorial dispute to invalidate Ukraine's ambitions to join other blocs, I agree. You also can't isolate the Maidan coup from US/NATO involvement in that coup. It was a popular movement, which no one doubts, but it was funded covertly by the CIA among others (another instance of bloc interests coinciding with regional interests; each being anti-Russian). I'm not sure that's his reason because Crimea is secured in perpetuity and the two separatists regions don't seem likely to return to Ukraine proper after eight years of civil war (and this invasion on top of it). Aside from that, Russia cannot hold Ukraine. It isn't militarily or economically strong enough to do so (also why I never thought, post-invasion, their ambitions extended beyond exacting a formal no-NATO treaty, neutral status, and recognition for those parts already held by Russian aligned parties). As it can't hold Ukraine, it cannot use its resources and manpower beyond those three areas it already controls (de facto).

Maybe Putin thought he could hold Ukraine (I doubt it, but who knows) prior to the war starting but I take the "two day" claim with a healthy dose of skepticism as Russia had to know the extent to which Ukraine had been armed by NATO because they have been funding the Eastern separatists for eight years.
My statement should have been more accurate. Nothing less than alignment with Russia by Ukraine could have prevented an invasion. Had they agreed to disarm or significantly weaken their armed forces, we'd likely have a Russian puppet in Kyiv right now.

I wonder if the intelligent services came to this conclusion, that Putin would invade if he couldn't win over Ukraine through propaganda and having his own candidate elected, and thus arming and training Ukraine as much as they dared.

I guess it's time for me to look at the evidence of US involvement in the Maidan movement since your argument, for me, largely hinges on that. The US would love to see a "color revolution" in any fascist country, but the type of resolve shown by protestors isn't something the CIA can create on their own. Even if the CIA was there giving support, I would think it would be hard to see them as the primary drivers of those events, above the internal politics and history of Ukraine.

By Georgia roadmap I simply mean that his response to a popular overthrow of his puppet leader, and the weakening of the Russian-leaning border regions, resulted in an invasion by Russia and then a leveling of cities when they can't march right in. It shouldn't have been too hard to predict Putin would invade looking at that invasion. And the lack of sanctions would have emboldened him, no wonder he's miscalculation the response to invading Ukraine, when there was little reaction (relatively speaking) to Georgia.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
13,180
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Maybe. I wasn't aware that there was a fuller clip. I wasn't vetting every single tweet that came up. I saw a video of a Ukrainian presenter with a picture of Eichmann seemingly no longer giving a feck if the world viewed Ukrainians as Nazis (something that is a minority problem, which I have always said in this thread) and thought that relevant to the idea of war being unpredictable (Dwayne's WWII rise of the blackshirts was the background, here). It wasn't intended to rile anyone up or paint a picture of all Ukrainians as Nazis or neo-Nazis (I've always said that it is clearly a minority problem, the Azov, and a problem which has to do with convenience insofar as Ukraine is fighting a civil war and now against an invasion and you won't turn down whatever fighters you think will help; the larger point being the scope of political reform of a marginal movement post-War). So I think this has been a genuine misunderstanding.
Videos offer a lot of ways for manipulation, translation/subtitles even more. So maybe when seeing something with so much room for doctoring it makes sense to actually spend those two seconds to click on the profile, right click and google the organization named in the profile and arrive at: "MintPress News is a left-leaning American online news website founded and edited by Mnar Adley which was launched in January 2012 and employs many Russia Today affiliates. " before posting it here and telling people off for questioning the source?
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
Videos offer a lot of ways for manipulation, translation/subtitles even more. So maybe when seeing something with so much room for doctoring it makes sense to actually spend those two seconds to click on the profile, right click and google the organization named in the profile and arrive at: "MintPress News is a left-leaning American online news website founded and edited by Mnar Adley which was launched in January 2012 and employs many Russia Today affiliates. " before posting it here and telling people off for questioning the source?
The clip wasn't doctored (though as there's a fuller clip, you could argue it was selectively framed, which is a fair point, but obviously there's no good way to frame Eichmann in that context) and the original point still stands. The added context from TMDaines is helpful, though. As a good rule, if someone posts a tweet which is text, I usually try to check their background (of late), if I am only interested in sharing the media, whether photo or video, I don't care who shares the clip. You have to distinguish the person sharing from the fact shared (when they only exist as a conduit). And I wasn't arguing about the source (know nothing about and want to know nothing about), I was defending the content (which I still defend as legitimate but with the added info provided by TMDaines, which helps clarify one or two things).
 

Tucholsky

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2012
Messages
180
Location
Somewhere in Germany
Supports
VfB Stuttgart
The clip wasn't doctored (though as there's a fuller clip, you could argue it was selectively framed, which is a fair point, but obviously there's no good way to frame Eichmann in that context) and the original point still stands. The added context from TMDaines is helpful, though. As a good rule, if someone posts a tweet which is text, I usually try to check their background (of late), if I am only interested in sharing the media, whether photo or video, I don't care who shares the clip. You have to distinguish the person sharing from the fact shared (when they only exist as a conduit). And I wasn't arguing about the source (know nothing about and want to know nothing about), I was defending the content (which I still defend as legitimate but with the added info provided by TMDaines, which helps clarify one or two things).
Stop digging.
You admitted yourself, that you don't care for source criticism. Which is the most fundamental skill in scientific research and navigating todays media landscape full of fake news, and doctored content (taking quotations out of context).
And even after TMDaines provided you with necessary context you try to defend the content and give it your spin.
You are not caring about facts, you are just searching for content that confirms your own bias and helps you spreading your views. And if someone corrects you. You track back a little bit, while doubling down on the same false news a few posts later.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
13,180
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
The clip wasn't doctored and the original point still stands. The added context from TMDaines is helpful, though. As a good rule, if someone posts a tweet which is text, I usually try to check their background (of late), if I am only interested in sharing the media, whether photo or video, I don't care who shares the clip. You have to distinguish the person sharing from the fact shared (when they only exist as a conduit). And I wasn't arguing about the source, I was defending the content (which I still defend as legitimate but with the added info provided by TMDaines, which helps clarify one or two things).
How would you know that, especially before you got the context from TMDaines? As someone who doesn't speak Russian this might as well have been some innocent history lesson from 2 years ago. And the original point of the Tweet you've shared is "Zelensky closed down opposition media and left this outlet – owned by the richest man in Ukraine – free to spew Nazi propaganda."

And in a world where states run their own bot farms and disinformation campaigns (one of which you just happily shared) I certainly do not have to distinguish between some clip or photo and the source, because in a world where everything can be easily edited the source actually determines the trustworthyness of media in front of you.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
How would you know that, especially before you got the context from TMDaines? As someone who doesn't speak Russian this might as well have been some innocent history lesson from 2 years ago. And the original point of the Tweet you've shared is "Zelensky closed down opposition media and left this outlet – owned by the richest man in Ukraine – free to spew Nazi propaganda."

And in a world where states run their own bot farms and disinformation campaigns (one of which you just happily shared) I certainly do not have to distinguish between some clip or photo and the source, because in a world where everything can be easily edited the source actually determines the trustworthyness of media in front of you.
https://www.australiannationalrevie...olution-doctrine-of-nazi-holocaust-organizer/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/03/17/ukre-m17.html
https://ussanews.com/ukrainian-tv-host-calls-for-genocide-of-russian-children/
https://newsessentials.wordpress.co...and-calls-for-killing-russian-children-video/
https://detv.us/2022/03/16/tv-host-quotes-eichmann-as-calling-for-killing-russian-children-rt-de/

Here he is apologizing.


The content was sound.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
But how did you know at the time of posting the tweet here? You said yourself you couldn't be bothered to even look at the Twitter profile.
Do you apply this same rigor when commenting upon things you agree with? And do those people spend five years in Russia learning the language so you know there's no way they've misrepresented the content?

I've never posted a "fake" story in as long as I've been on this board.

Stop digging.
You admitted yourself, that you don't care for source criticism. Which is the most fundamental skill in scientific research and navigating todays media landscape full of fake news, and doctored content (taking quotations out of context).
And even after TMDaines provided you with necessary context you try to defend the content and give it your spin.
You are not caring about facts, you are just searching for content that confirms your own bias and helps you spreading your views. And if someone corrects you. You track back a little bit, while doubling down on the same false news a few posts later.
You are applying a "fake news" ideology to things that you don't agree with. Ironically, the original point was not this contentious. If you all apply this effort to every foreign language tweet posted, I'll revise my opinion.
 

Pintu

Full Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Messages
1,753
Location
Sweden
And the original point of the Tweet you've shared is "Zelensky closed down opposition media and left this outlet – owned by the richest man in Ukraine – free to spew Nazi propaganda."
Well, there is some truth to that.
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-zelenskiy-bans-three-opposition-tv-stations/a-56438505
The head of the Ukrainian Union of Journalists, Nikolay Tomilenko, said: "The deprivation of access to Ukrainian media for an audience of millions without a court ... is an attack on freedom of expression."

Source: Deutsche Welle, early 2021

I think we are all grown up here and we can handle some (even very harsh) criticism of the current government in Ukraine, without being so stupid to buy into Putin's propaganda about the country being ruled by Nazis. Ignoring everything bad that our side does is not very constructive.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
I think we are all grown up here and we can handle some (even very harsh) criticism of the current government in Ukraine, without being so stupid to buy into Putin's propaganda about the country being ruled by Nazis. Ignoring everything bad that our side does is not very constructive.
Exactly. The original point I was making was also relegated within a minority context (the potential for minority extremists to gain legitimacy post-War). It had nothing to do with whether Putin's claim was legitimate (it wasn't and isn't, which I've stated relentlessly). And, if anyone is interested in reading the actual thread, you'll see I agreed that Putin is basically doing the opposite of what his propaganda states (potentially creating the conditions that do not now exist and didn't prior to invasion).
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
13,180
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
Do you apply this same rigor when commenting upon things you agree with? And do those people spend five years in Russia learning the language so you know there's no way they've misrepresented the content?
Yes, when sharing stuff about a topic as sensible as this war I go the whole way, I click the profile and I spent the whole 15 seconds to look at it to get an idea whose propaganda I might be sharing.


I've never posted a "fake" story in as long as I've been on this board.
You're freely sharing Russian propaganda and telling people not to bother being critical about their sources, so while this story may not have been entirely fake, just deeply distorted by omitting crucial context, I'd say you're coming pretty close.

You are applying a "fake news" ideology to things that you don't agree with. Ironically, the original point was not this contentious. If you all apply this effort to every foreign language tweet posted, I'll revise my opinion.
Here we are again, telling people off for being critical with their sources. RT and the likes must really love you. My "ideology" is the belief that propaganda is a thing and that people sometimes actually manipulate things and lie to you, especially on SM. Which means when I see something coming from a propaganda source I will wait until someone I deem (more) trustworthy or whose biases I believe to be aware of picks it up. Because if a story is actually real they will.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
just deeply distorted by omitting crucial context
What was the crucial context that vitiates my use of the content within the original exchange?

Point me to one example where it's been this drawn out. Trump was president for years and Covid was a thing, so you must have found some actual conspiracy loons posting things that weren't true and applied this same level of critique.

You're freely sharing Russian propaganda and telling people not to bother being critical about their sources, so while this story may not have been entirely fake, just deeply distorted by omitting crucial context, I'd say you're coming pretty close.
Also, "propaganda" doesn't mean "not true" or imply that the person using it in other contexts agrees with the propagandist. Everything is propaganda and potentially serves a purpose distinct from the one you intend. There is also "black" propaganda and "white" propaganda (the Belgian atrocity stories, for example, with which this thread opened was "black" propaganda).
 
Last edited:

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
13,180
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
What was the crucial context that vitiates my use of the content within the original exchange?
When you share straight up propaganda without having any idea of what's actually being said in the content or whether manipulation has occured you're flying completely blind. Yes, this time it turned out so that you can claim it still fit your point, but you had no way of actually knowing that when you posted it. What about next time when you share something without knowing what it actually means?

Point me to one example where it's been this drawn out. Trump was president for years and Covid was a thing, so you must have found some actual conspiracy loons posting things that weren't true and applied this same level of critique.
Do you think my objecting to uncritically sharing RT propaganda is some personal move against you? I keep responding to you, because quite frankly I'm a bit shocked that Redcafe staff, instead of doing quality control, would actually be the ones sharing and facilitating propaganda. And for what it's worth even in the context of sports reporting I frequently critize sources. It's called critical thinking.

Also, "propaganda" doesn't mean "not true" or imply that the person using it in other contexts agrees with the propagandist. Everything is propaganda.
So what? People should still be critical with the information they consume and even more so when they share it.
 

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
When you share straight up propaganda without having any idea of what's actually being said in the content or whether manipulation has occured you're flying completely blind. Yes, this time it turned out so that you can claim it still fit your point, but you had no way of actually knowing that when you posted it. What about next time when you share something without knowing what it actually means?



Do you think my objecting to uncritically sharing RT propaganda is some personal move against you? I keep responding to you, because quite frankly I'm a bit shocked that Redcafe staff, instead of doing quality control, would actually be the ones sharing and facilitating propaganda. And for what it's worth even in the context of sports reporting I frequently critize sources. It's called critical thinking.



So what? People should still be critical with the information they consume and even more so when they share it.
Indeed, and I have been critical with it (no misrepresentation nor claim beyond the intensely narrow spectrum within which I applied it). As for motive, yes, I do suspect this is probably personal. I'll leave it there.
 
Source/Content differntials and a basic format regarding how to handle sources, especially those which are lesser known/ambiguous.

Mciahel Goodman

Worst Werewolf Player of All Times
Staff
Joined
Apr 27, 2014
Messages
30,006
Phyllis Bennis is a member of IPS (which is an acronym for the Institute for Policy Studies). Their webpage states: "We're a progressive organization dedicated to building a more equitable, ecologically sustainable, and peaceful society." (1).

Additionally: "As Washington’s first progressive multi-issue think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has served as a policy and research resource for visionary social justice movements for over five decades — from the anti-war and civil rights movements in the 1960s to the peace and global justice movements of the last decade. Some of the greatest progressive minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have found a home at IPS, starting with the organization’s founders, Richard Barnet and Marcus Raskin. IPS scholars have included such luminaries as Arthur Waskow, Gar Alperovitz, Saul Landau, Bob Moses, Rita Mae Brown, Barbara Ehrenreich, Roger Wilkins and Orlando Letelier. Meet the current members of our Board of Trustees." Not to be confused with the basketball player or the lunatic who was involved in the Capitol Riots, the wiki page for one of the founding members of IPS reads: "Richard Jackson Barnet (May 7, 1929 – December 23, 2004) was an American scholar-activist who co-founded the Institute for Policy Studies." (2).

Democracy Now! is a highly respected independent news organization which hosts debates on a very wide range of topics and frequently gives platforms to academics from both the left and right sides of American and international politics. It is left leaning or "liberal" in character but uses internal critique to push against the grain of the arguments given by its guests. (3).

The content has to do with the idea of militarization opposed to diplomacy, understood via the topic of a potential no fly zone (NFZ) and why this NFZ could be a bad idea.

 

hasanejaz88

Full Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
4,490
Location
Munich
Supports
Germany

Ridiculous, and offensive.

Hoping it’s meant ironically and just been crudely edited.
I'm trying to give her the benefit of doubt in that it's a question being posed rather than a statement, but then the tone of the question seems to be a serious one as in Europeans shouldn't be expected to care about Syrians and Muslims, but they should be if it's Europeans.
 

NotThatSoph

Full Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2019
Messages
2,284
What fact? If you take the dregs of TV, especially during wartime when emotions are heightened, you can construct a false narrative? It’s like cherry picking the worst of GB News to paint an overall negative picture of the British people.

You might as well just post the various claims of Russia Today and the various Russian embassies at this point at supposedly face value, and then duck behind “retweets are not endorsements” of either the content or the author when challenged on your agenda.
In other Nazi-like statements, I could link to Svetlana Zhurova calling doubts on the fact that chess player Evgeny Romanov is even Russian, given his Jewish roots, in response to him choosing to play under the Norwegian flag rather than the Russian. She's not a very important person, and I could share this link via a very pro-Ukranian source.

Would this be an example of cherry picking to paint a negative picture of the Russian people, and something revealing my agenda? Because the invasion thread is full of similar stuff.
 

Beans

Full Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2019
Messages
2,824
Location
Midwest, USA
Do you apply this same rigor when commenting upon things you agree with? And do those people spend five years in Russia learning the language so you know there's no way they've misrepresented the content?

I've never posted a "fake" story in as long as I've been on this board.
This is literal "whataboutery", saying yes I did it but what about your own practices.
 
X