completely ignoring the fact that under nato rules ukraine could not be admitted as a member until the conflict within its borders was settled. there was absolutely zero chance of ukraine being admitted as long as russia kept the separatist movement live. this war has nothing to do with ukraine joining nato, its about the eu
You seem to have a typical progressive approach to history, where the history of an issue begins at whatever point is most useful to carry the desired political narrative.
US military industrial complex political sell-outs have been using NATO to sell the required arms to co-opted member states, knowing full well that doing so would push Russia into attempting to secure Ukraine and create a demand for even more arms purchases.
Itâs about westernization in general. E.U, NATO, whatever. Itâs westernization.
nope, just the eu. nato was a non factor. putin had it within his power to prevent nato membership indefinitely by basically doing nothing more than he was already doing. he couldnât stop the eu
So this whole war is the fault of the US.
Cool.
You seem to be using another progressive tactic here. Exaggerate your adversaryâs view ad absurdam, and imply that is your adversaries actusl position.
No. The whole war is not the fault of the US. A major contributor to the war is those in the US MIC and politics whose lust for weapons sales outstrips their concern for humanity.
2 Likes
You know Putin could have not invaded a independent nation because he didnât like their policies.
The claim was that the US, in order to sell weapons, pushed Russia into invading Ukraine.
That would make the war the fault of the US.
Right?
The lengths that people go to in order to excuse Russian Imperialism is wild.
[quote=âJezcoe, post:111, topic:241511â]
You are doing it again.
There are causes that are some Americansâ fault, and some causes that are some Russiansâ fault, and some causes that are some Ukraniansâ fault etc.
To dismiss all causes bar Putin is dishonest propaganda. As would be dismissing all causes bar the MIC. Certain US elements want this war and are fanning it for their own benefit. They need to be called out for it and be made to shoulder some of the blame and be instructed to stop, just as much as Putin should, and some Ukrainians dishonoring the Minsk agreement should.
Explain the reductio ad absurdumâŚfallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum is also known as âreducing to an absurdity.â It involves characterizing an opposing argument in such a way that it seems to be ridiculous, or the consequences of the position seem ridiculous. It can be ridiculous in the sense that the argument seems silly, or ridiculous in the sense that that no reasonable person would take such a position.
An example of reductio ad absurdum would be a an anti-Equal Rights advocate claiming that anyone in favor of an Equal Right Amendment must be in favor of killing babies.
The reductio ad absurdum fallacy is similar to the straw person fallacy. Someone who makes a reductio ad absurdum fallacy doesnât go on to attack the other position, though, because itâs so absurd the audience can dismiss it without counter-argument. Someone committing the straw person fallacy does go ahead an refute the other argument to appear to have a strong argument of his or her own.
The fallacy of the single cause, also known as complex cause, causal oversimplification, causal reductionism, and reduction fallacy,[1] is an informal fallacy of questionable cause that occurs when it is assumed that there is a single, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.
Agreed.
I have not excused Russian Imperialism. Nor do I excuse US imperialism, nor NATO imperialism.
1 Like
Itâs not.
He is being an expansionary imperialist autocrat and people are making excuses for him.
Just how is NATO Imperialistic?
NATO expansion east debate has been going on for decades itâs not new and it has been debated or questioned at times.
âOn June 26, a group of 50 prominent foreign policy experts that included former senators, retired military officers, diplomats and academicians, sent an open letter to President Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion.â
Bidenâs CIA director, William J. Burns, has been warning about the provocative effect of NATO expansion on Russia since 1995.
In 2008, Burns, then the American ambassador to Moscow, wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: âUkrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than 2½ years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putinâs sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.â
A lot of people knew that Ukraine and NATO could end in war, everyone was warned the dice has been rolled and we just just have to hope it works out the way never expanding east has taken us. Letâs just hope WW3 is avoided this is the type of â â â â it starts from and no one would have guessed it would grow but it often did throughout history.
Good article for thought.
3 Likes
There have been elections since some group of protesters were shot.
If we decide that Russian elections arenât fair, for one reason or another, do we have a right to invade Russia and set up our own âfairâ government?
What if we decide it is corrupt, or that Putin steals, or oligarchs launder money? Can we go in then?
If Russia decides the 2020 election was stolen, and they had the power, could they send in troops to âstop the stealâ?
None of this is making any kind of case to justify what Putin did.
Who is making excuses for Putin bombing civilians?
I missed the part where Serbia, Syria and Libya had nuclear weapons.
The US had plenty of nuclear weapons in 1962. Does that mean Kennedy should have been fine with the Soviets turning Cuba into a missile base?
In criminal law pointing a gun at someone is considered aggravated assault or a similar crime.
International law is not so clear, but recklessly and needlessly threatening another country is likely to result in a war.
The real question is why would Biden promote NATO membership for Ukraine if he knew it was likely to trigger war with Russia? Where is the US national interest in that?
1 Like
You misunderstood my point.
I was making a practical point, not a moral one.
As a practical matter, the US and NATO are not a military threat to Russia proper because of nuclear weapons.
