Popular Comments

nan said:

PVW said:

nan said:

PVW said:

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 27, 2014.

Ok, so you are talking about Crimea, which I'm guessing we have different opinions about, right?  

What is your view on this?

Go back through this thread. You'll see that I've consistently referred to Russia's actions of 2022 as an escalation of the war it began in 2014.

WHAT????  You are so Russophobic that I tend to glaze over your habit of blaming the Russians for everything.   You are saying the Russians began the war in 2014?  How?

By invading and occupying Ukrainian territory. Most people have no problem recognizing that as war.

In February of 2014, Crimea was the legitimate territory of Ukraine. And Russia invaded and occupied it. It also sent troops into eastern Ukraine to stoke an insurgency.

You're free to explain why you feel Russia was justified in going to war against Ukraine, but let's be clear that this is what you're doing.

Russia invaded Ukraine on February 27, 2014.

I did. He's a liar and those who believe him are dupes. Take, for instance, where he talks about WWII -- he conveniently skips over the fact that the war began, not with Germany attacking the USSR, but with the USSR and Germany allied and jointly attacking Poland. In the context of Ukraine, his talking about millions killed very pointedly skips over the millions killed by the USSR.

His speech is full of similar dishonest omissions and misdirections. It's a speech that relies on his audience's ignorance and credulity.

Jaytee said:

I’m wondering if trump’s minions are behind the scenes offering money to the families of the jurors. This guy is capable of anything, and right now a hung jury is all he needs. 

I'm thinking that a hung jury might happen. It has to be intimidating for most people to have not only Trump but all of the Republican political figures watching the jury and observing them arrive and leave the courthouse. They must be worried about being photographed or followed. A big responsibility to convict a former President with all of the crazies out there.

Some people delight in constructing paths of breadcrumbs leading backwards from historical events and then proclaiming that said historical event was inevitable.  People float the myth that the Treaty of Versailles was the cause of WW 2 and that FDR knew that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor.  

These arguments about the cause of war in Ukraine are no different.  The reality is that there were many decision points along the trail from 1994 to the present when different decisions could have been made that would have changed history.  The U.S. could have done some things differently.  Putin could have made different decisions.  I reject the argument that the U.S. is unilaterally responsible for the war.

Let me see if I can sum up the Nan doctrine:

- If any former SSR shows signs of U.S. meddling, this represents and existential threat to Russia, and there are no limits on how Russia can respond. Anything -- invasion, occupation, annexation, threatening nuclear strikes -- is justified in response to an existential threat.

-  Any former SSR that acts against Russian interests is acting on behalf of the U.S. No post-Soviet state would ever, of its own volition, act against Russian interests. Any state that does so,and any political leader in such a state that does so, is an agent of or being manipulated by the United States.

- No act by a former SSR to provide for its own defense against current or future Russian aggression is justified, because if Russia is threatening it this means Russia is responding to U.S. meddling. In fact, the very act of taking defensive measures is itself proof of ill intent against Russia, directed by the United States.

nan said:

Continued diplomacy is not the same as "don't do it," which is unacceptable.

I am actually skeptical that continued diplomacy would work, since many of the names/groups mentioned had already admitted they were not open to anything like that. This was from a year ago and since then I have heard Jeffrey Sachs complain about the lack of diplomacy for the groups he mentions.

Continued diplomacy, rather than surrender to Nazis, NGOs and border warheads, was always the obvious alternative to “Do it.”

Alas, a military invasion makes diplomacy more difficult. I’m hoping you can understand that without needing to hear it from Jeffrey Sachs first.

nohero said:

DaveSchmidt said:

joanne said:

I’m not sure what our marsupials have to do with your political/judicial system?

It’s a recycled cartoon from the 1950s, when everyone thought Menzies had the American vice president in his pocket.

Let's not jump to conclusions. 

oomph

nan said:

  It is pointless for me to go back and forth with you about why the Russians felt this was an existential threat.

This is true, because your words are meaningless. You'll say that there would have been no war if Minsk was followed and, when pointed out that Minsk addresses none of the things you claim were critical, claim that taking you at your word is nitpicking. You'll claim Russia faced an existential threat, but weave this way and that on what you mean by that. You'll claim you support peace, while bending over backward to justify war.

But maybe you're right about forests and trees. Forget your specific words and claims -- the forest is this -- you believe the United States is a uniquely malign force in our world, and so you support any entity that opposes it. That's your sole criteria. Anything and anyone is justified if it aligns against the CIA-neocon cabal you believe runs things. Anyone and anything is suspect of being in alliance with that cabal if they do not sufficiently oppose it. Everything else is irrelevant details.