nan said:

Ukraine on Fire is a documentary.  Do you know what documentary is?  What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film.  

If I had even the slightest hope that, were I to watch the movie, you and I would be able to have a reasonable discussion about it, I might be tempted. But you watched the movie already and seem unable to present its argument, so why would that change if I watched it?

PVW said:

If I had even the slightest hope that, were I to watch the movie, you and I would be able to have a reasonable discussion about it, I might be tempted. But you watched the movie already and seem unable to present its argument, so why would that change if I watched it?

Because then we would be talking about a movie (which I have presented the argument about in multiple posts) instead of just snipping at the heels. It would be an improvement.  

nan said:

Because then we would be talking about a movie (which I have presented the argument about in multiple posts) instead of just snipping at the heels. It would be an improvement.  

No, you haven't really presented it. The crux of my objection to your arguments is here. You didn't address what I said, just repeated the same assertions you're previously made. Simply repeating a claim is not an argument.

But maybe what I asked was to broad. Let's focus it. You said "NATO justifies it's existence by demonizing Russia and that's its primary gravy train. It is a direct threat to Russia. It should have gone out of business after the Cold War but it found a way to keep going and that way was to get us all to hate Russia."

The counter argument is that no one forced the Baltics or former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO -- they did that of their own free will. Does your movie provide any explanation for this?

PVW said:

No, you haven't really presented it. The crux of my objection to your arguments is here. You didn't address what I said, just repeated the same assertions you're previously made. Simply repeating a claim is not an argument.

But maybe what I asked was to broad. Let's focus it. You said "NATO justifies it's existence by demonizing Russia and that's its primary gravy train. It is a direct threat to Russia. It should have gone out of business after the Cold War but it found a way to keep going and that way was to get us all to hate Russia."

The counter argument is that no one forced the Baltics or former Warsaw Pact countries to join NATO -- they did that of their own free will. Does your movie provide any explanation for this?

The movie is about the 2014 Ukraine coup.  I think I mentioned that before.  

nan said:

The movie is about the 2014 Ukraine coup.  I think I mentioned that before.  

And as I pointed out, the logic of your position renders irrelevant the question of whether that was a coup or a genuine revolution. The question of NATO expansion, on the other hand, seems much more central to your argument. So why would I spend a good chunk of my free time to watch a move about what's ultimately a tangential subject to your position?

nan said:

tjohn said:

Nan,

If I understand you correctly, the West should have simply stood by as Putin forced Ukraine into the Russian sphere by whatever means he felt necessary.  What about the Baltic States?

So, tell me, in a world where tribal and religious boundaries often don't align with national boundaries, when is it appropriate for nations to have strong opinions (embargoes, opposition support, etc.) about the internal affairs of some other nation?

Should we have allowed Serbia to retain Kosovo by bloody force.  Should we have allowed Gaddafi to suppress the rebel uprising? (There wouldn't have been a Benghazi, at least.)

The West should not have expanded NATO westward after the end of the Cold War.  They promised that they would not do that in exchange for Russia allowing the reunification of Germany.  They did not keep that promise.  In 2014, the US backed a coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine and inserted a handpicked US puppet president. This messed up and already divided country.  Because of this coup, Crimea voted to go back with Russia and  we have the fighting in the Donbas region (where lots of people are getting killed but crickets about that). There was also the Minsk Agreement which Zelensky did not enforce. 

Anyway, Putin has made it clear since the 90s that NATO expansion is his line in the sand and he has said this over and over again.  No politician except Bernie Sanders has been so consistent in his requirements over a very long time.  Despite that, the US propaganda machine tells us that NATO is of minor importance and that Putin is just a mad man hell bent on world domination.  Thank you Disney!

So long story but to answer your first question, the West should have kept NATO out of Putin's earshot and allowed Ukraine to chart it's own course. Instead they put in a US puppet and then sold weapons to Ukraine and provoked Putin and exacerbated the situation into a proxy war with Russia.  So what I'm saying is that they could have prevented this invasion from happening in the first place.  

A very long-winded way of saying that you would have had no objection to Russia forcibly reintegrating Ukraine.

PVW said:

And as I pointed out, the logic of your position renders irrelevant the question of whether that was a coup or a genuine revolution. The question of NATO expansion, on the other hand, seems much more central to your argument. So why would I spend a good chunk of my free time to watch a move about what's ultimately a tangential subject to your position?

Do you drive your whole family nuts like this?   Just watch the movie.  Get some popcorn.  It's free.  

nan said:

PVW said:

And as I pointed out, the logic of your position renders irrelevant the question of whether that was a coup or a genuine revolution. The question of NATO expansion, on the other hand, seems much more central to your argument. So why would I spend a good chunk of my free time to watch a move about what's ultimately a tangential subject to your position?

Do you drive your whole family nuts like this?   Just watch the movie.  Get some popcorn.  It's free.  

Driving people nuts...Just your forte. Why don't you just crawl back in your hole like you did for the last year+, and leave us the fukc alone !

tjohn said:

A very long-winded way of saying that you would have had no objection to Russia forcibly reintegrating Ukraine.

That's not what I said.  I think they will help out the Donbas area where 14,000 people have died, many killed by far right military using US weapons.  Where are the Facebook posts supporting those people?  Crickets.

Anyway, I found a New Yorker (mainstream media!!!!!) interview with John Mearsheimer, the guy who was in the video that Terp posted a few days ago (which was from about 2015).  He's a political academic from University of Chicago and has been predicting this conflict for years.  Of course he was ignored.  Anyway, they interview him and ask him if he's changed his mind since the invasion and he says  still feels the same.  He goes into detail about why Ukraine cannot join NATO and must remain neutral.  He also talks about the expansion of NATO over the years and the danger that has caused.  He also talks about the West's characterization of Putin as an evil dictator seeking world domination. 

Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

For years, the political scientist has claimed that Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine is caused by Western intervention. Have recent events changed his mind?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker&utm_social-type=earned

nan said:

PVW said:

Facts are a different context than movies, as Nan has helpfully pointed out.

Documentary movies use lots of facts.

nan said:

The West should not have expanded NATO westward after the end of the Cold War.

You still go faster than the speed of soundness.

nan said:

That's not what I said.  I think they will help out the Donbas area where 14,000 people have died, many killed by far right military using US weapons.  Where are the Facebook posts supporting those people?  Crickets.

Care to share who the 14,000 were who died in the Donbass region and why?

Were any of the casualties due to Russian backed rebels?  Or was this all USA's fault?

Over 8 years in that conflict - out of that there were around 3,400 civilians killed.  In one week, there are estimates of 2,500 civilians deaths.  So, if you want to compare the 2 conflicts - let's have at it.

Also, most of the fighting occurred after Russia annexed Crimea - why don't you bring this up?

You keep moving the goal posts to justify Putin's invasion.  But you rarely state Putin's reason goal, which is to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine.  (No civilian targets)

And why not speak out of behalf of the Russian people, what's happening there in horrendous.

DaveSchmidt said:

You still go faster than the speed of soundness.

Awh, you always catch me!   OK -- not move east.  I always get them confused.  Not good when I'm driving.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Why don't you just crawl back in your hole like you did for the last year+, and leave us the fukc alone !

I would like to nominate this post for the annual Irony Award.

Welcome back Nan.  Long time no see.  I still disagree with most of what you say but it is always nice to see someone dissenting from the far faaaaaaaar left. 

nan said:

tjohn said:

A very long-winded way of saying that you would have had no objection to Russia forcibly reintegrating Ukraine.

That's not what I said.  I think they will help out the Donbas area where 14,000 people have died, many killed by far right military using US weapons.  Where are the Facebook posts supporting those people?  Crickets.

Anyway, I found a New Yorker (mainstream media!!!!!) interview with John Mearsheimer, the guy who was in the video that Terp posted a few days ago (which was from about 2015).  He's a political academic from University of Chicago and has been predicting this conflict for years.  Of course he was ignored.  Anyway, they interview him and ask him if he's changed his mind since the invasion and he says  still feels the same.  He goes into detail about why Ukraine cannot join NATO and must remain neutral.  He also talks about the expansion of NATO over the years and the danger that has caused.  He also talks about the West's characterization of Putin as an evil dictator seeking world domination. 

Why John Mearsheimer Blames the U.S. for the Crisis in Ukraine

For years, the political scientist has claimed that Putin’s aggression toward Ukraine is caused by Western intervention. Have recent events changed his mind?

https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/why-john-mearsheimer-blames-the-us-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=onsite-share&utm_brand=the-new-yorker&utm_social-type=earned

here's a good counter to Mearshimer, who should not be treated like some Nostradamus just because Putin decided to invade.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

State media explains how Europe fears denazification:

https://ria.ru/20220305/evropa-1776578956.html

It seems like they think only Germany was de-nazified?  What an odd article, I'm sure it get a bit lost in translation.  But I haven't found any good definition of what de-nazification is and how it's measured currently and how they'll know when they achieve the goal.  Can anyone else explain this?

Seems like Nazis running out of control in Europe is how the Russian government wants to portray and justify their actions.

The topic of NATO expansion in state run media isn't mentioned at all.

also, if Putin is not a psycho, we shouldn't be afraid of him escalating to nukes, because only a psycho would do that.

Nazis are everywhere - it truly appears to be the #1 reason Vlad is in Ukraine - here's the state reporting in regards to the nuclear plant incident:

Speaking about the fire that occurred on the territory of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant , Peskov said that it was the result of a "provocation by the Nazis." He confirmed that the level of radiation at the station is normal.

drummerboy said:

here's a good counter to Mearshimer, who should not be treated like some Nostradamus just because Putin decided to invade.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

Drummerboy, that's quite a good article.  To summarize, it's complicated and, for any given outcome, critics will always rush to look back and say, see, this was predicted.  It's just like people who blame the Treaty of Versailles for the rise of Hitler.

jamie said:

Nazis are everywhere - it truly appears to be the #1 reason Vlad is in Ukraine - here's the state reporting in regards to the nuclear plant incident:

Speaking about the fire that occurred on the territory of the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant , Peskov said that it was the result of a "provocation by the Nazis." He confirmed that the level of radiation at the station is normal.

I think he's really looking for Moose and Squirrel.

A major source of the legitimacy of the government of the USSR derived from the defeat of the German Nazis and the Russian government, apparently, is still playing that tune.

nohero said:

nan said:

nohero said:

And similarly, Putin doesn't want war, all he wants is peace.

A little piece of Ukraine, a little piece of Poland, ...

Again with the Hitler references.  You never stop. 

It was a Mel Brooks reference in reply to a "Blazing Saddles" reference in a prior post.

It’s become clear that nan exists in a different context to the rest of us.

ridski said:

nohero said:

nan said:

Again with the Hitler references.  You never stop. 

It was a Mel Brooks reference in reply to a "Blazing Saddles" reference in a prior post.

It’s become clear that nan exists in a different context to the rest of us.

She may have me confused with Vladimir Putin, who never stops with the Nazi references.

Putin explains what he wants to a roomful of female Aeroflot flight attendants (they probably have a lot of free time these days). Unlike when he's with his advisers, he doesn't sit at the far end of a long table.

(Thread)

nan said:

Ukraine on Fire is a documentary.  Do you know what documentary is?  What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film.  

Plandemic is a documentary. Loose Change is a documentary. Patriot Purge is a documentary. Vaxxed is a documentary.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Driving people nuts...Just your forte. Why don't you just crawl back in your hole like you did for the last year+, and leave us the fukc alone !

Well hello Dennis!  Thanks for the hugs and kisses!   Smooch, Smooch.  

Klinker said:

I would like to nominate this post for the annual Irony Award.

Welcome back Nan.  Long time no see.  I still disagree with most of what you say but it is always nice to see someone dissenting from the far faaaaaaaar left. 

I don't know what "dissenting from the far faaaaaaaar left"  means but nevermind, nice to see you are still here and hopefully well. 

Ridski posted:

nan said:

Ukraine on Fire is a documentary. Do you know what documentary is? What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film.

Plandemic is a documentary. Loose Change is a documentary. Patriot Purge is a documentary. Vaxxed is a documentary.

----------------------------------

So, according to you, there are bad, untruthful documentaries in the world so Ukraine on Fire must be a bad movie?  Zero logic.

Good thing I'm a patient special ed teacher.  Let me break it down for you.  It's called "Author's Purpose" when they teach it in elementary school.

People make fiction/fantasy movies to entertain.  They make documentaries to inform and persuade.  

People watch documentaries and they may be informed or persuaded or they may find fault with the material presented.  Because one movie has been found to have lots of faults (Did you watch the other movies you are trashing either? I'm guessing not) does not automatically mean another movie is garbage.  They are separate entities, made by discrete bodies. 

drummerboy said:

here's a good counter to Mearshimer, who should not be treated like some Nostradamus just because Putin decided to invade.

https://newrepublic.com/article/165603/carlson-russia-ukraine-imperialism-nato

Good line:

"Paradoxically, the problem with American exceptionalism is that even those who challenge its foundational tenets and heap scorn on American militarism often end up recreating American exceptionalism by centering the United States in their analyses of international relations."

nan said:

Plandemic is a documentary. Loose Change is a documentary. Patriot Purge is a documentary. Vaxxed is a documentary.

----------------------------------

So, according to you, there are bad, untruthful documentaries in the world so Ukraine on Fire must be a bad movie?  Zero logic.

Good thing I'm a patient special ed teacher.  Let me break it down for you.  It's called "Author's Purpose" when they teach it in elementary school.

People make fiction/fantasy movies to entertain.  They make documentaries to inform and persuade.  

People watch documentaries and they may be informed or persuaded or they may find fault with the material presented.  Because one movie has been found to have lots of faults (Did you watch the other movies you are trashing either? I'm guessing not) does not automatically mean another movie is garbage.  They are separate entities, made by discrete bodies. 

no according to Ridski, calling something a documentary is not sufficient to claim that it is truthful, which you are doing.

nan said:

So, according to you, there are bad, untruthful documentaries in the world so Ukraine on Fire must be a bad movie?  Zero logic.

If that was what ridski had said, you’d be right about the logic. Instead, he was pointing to the zero logic behind your inference that if a movie is a documentary it must be factual. (DB beat me to it.)

“Watch the movie” is the reply of someone who can’t address PVW’s comments and questions on her own two feet. It’s the kind of reply that propagandists aim for.

DaveSchmidt said:

nan said:

Duh, there were 2 candidates in 2016. In 2020 there are 20. Like Nate Silver, you can't do math.

Please explain how that matters. (I told you I’d ask.)

nan said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Please explain how that matters. (I told you I’d ask.)

Watch the video.