"In the 'battle for Ukraine,' the neocons were ready to provoke a military confrontation with Russia by expanding NATO over Russia's vehement objections because they fervently believe that Russia will be defeated by US financial sanctions and NATO weaponry."
Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true. In reality, the very fact that you would call something “beyond dispute” points to a disingenous argument on your part. There’s always a devil’s advocate argument to be made.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn't some argument of ideas, it's a basic verifiable fact, and what you're doing here is just sophistry.
Your “respected scholars” aren’t unanimously respected - particularly in the fields you quote them in, which are not their specialty.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
I’m just calling out bullshit where I see it, there’s no parroted rhetoric from me.
Nah, you're just generating bullshit here.
You did not explicitly endorse them, but you gloss over obvious failings and objective evils, and divert to praise instead. The implication is that you support Russia and stand against anyone who Russia is against.
That's infantile reasoning. It's perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Meanwhile, I call out Russia, I call out NATO, I call out Ukraine. I dig my heels in the sand and call out bullshit in all directions. Fuck the war industry and those that profit from death.
No you don't, you're regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Again, making false statements as if they are fact. I have finally left another comment, but that’s only because I could not let such bullshit go unchallenged.
This itself is a false statement.
However, you have completely ignored this, with a clear implication that you have an agenda to push.
It's actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries.
To quote you, "Where?" Where did I say that?
You're making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren't presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you're trying to attack me personally.
Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
I haven't said they don't attack others, you haven't offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You've mentioned a few countries, but I'm sure you know it's far more nuanced than that. Instead, you're just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.
Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They're doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are "selling" the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven't raped the country's finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government's problem.
Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples' money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin's estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it's not Putin's money. Throw all the young country men's lives away in Ukraine, they're not Putin's people, who cares.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
That’s infantile reasoning. It’s perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
Again, personal attacks. You're not making meaningful arguments, you're just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that's on topic?
No you don’t, you’re regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them
Like this.
This itself is a false statement.
What's false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
It’s actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, I've called out the west. What I haven't acknowledged is your interpretation that "People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine" as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I've asked too many times now.
I wish you’d follow your own advice.
Man, I'm always trying. I don't get it right every time, but I keep trying.
I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.
You said "Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true", perhaps clarify which statement you're referring to then, because based on the thread that's the statement I made that you're disputing.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense.
Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It's a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.
The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I'm referencing you start going off about name dropping.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.
Please, present the facts.
I have, go back and read this thread where I've presented the facts already.
What’s false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I've explained why it's false.
I haven’t refused to acknowledge anything, I’ve called out the west. What I haven’t acknowledged is your interpretation that “People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine” as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Nice straw man there.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I’ve asked too many times now.
I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you're unwilling to. Either way it's clear that further discussion is pointless.
One has to utterly lack any intellectual integrity to dispute the fact that NATO has invaded and destroyed many countries. Calling an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression defensive is the height of intellectual dishonesty. This isn't some argument of ideas, it's a basic verifiable fact, and what you're doing here is just sophistry.
Scholars such as John Mearsheimer are in fact respected by the vast majority of their peers, and geopoliticis is in fact their specialty.
Nah, you're just generating bullshit here.
That's infantile reasoning. It's perfectly possible for adults to understand reasons and motivations of others without endorsing them.
No you don't, you're regurgitating a false narrative and ignore basic facts of the situation.
This itself is a false statement.
It's actually quite clear that you yourself have an agenda to push, and you continue to refuse to acknowledge the responsibility that the west bears in creating the conditions for the conflict, and in prolonging it to this day. Maybe do some self reflection.
I wish you'd follow your own advice.
To quote you, "Where?" Where did I say that?
You're making disingenuous arguments and personal insults again. You aren't presenting ideas - presumably because you know your ideas are lacking - instead you're trying to attack me personally.
I haven't said they don't attack others, you haven't offered enough detail for me to critique that point over any specific events. You've mentioned a few countries, but I'm sure you know it's far more nuanced than that. Instead, you're just parroting bullshit rhetoric. This is real dishonesty on your part.
Nonetheless, it must be said that aggressive actions do not invalidate genuine defense. Not that NATO is defending in regards to Ukraine. NATO is not involved, even if countries that are in NATO are involved.
Countries that are in NATO are feeding weapons to Ukraine. They're doing this not because they are in NATO, but because they are financing their local war industries. For example, the UK is providing arms not as donations, but as bilateral aid agreements - Ukraine is supposed to pay them back eventually. Meanwhile, the terms of these agreements almost certainly favour the UK (as all bilateral aid agreements always favour the country giving), such that, financially, they are "selling" the weapons at above market rates, albeit as a long term loan. Even though in the future Ukraine will almost certainly not be able to repay the debt, it means that the current UK government can fiddle their books to make it look like they haven't raped the country's finances as much as they have. Writing off the debt is a future UK government's problem.
Meanwhile, Russia gets away with squandering the Russian peoples' money even more than any other government in the world, financing things like Putin's estate near Gelendzhik. Throw out all the marble, who cares, it's not Putin's money. Throw all the young country men's lives away in Ukraine, they're not Putin's people, who cares.
Way to name drop. Argue a point, not people.
Again, personal attacks. You're not making meaningful arguments, you're just following a playbook. How many pages do you have left? When will you actually present an argument that's on topic?
Please, present the facts. Put your balls on the table. Bullet points can be given with a - in front of them
What's false? The fact that I finally replied to you? Do you actually have something meaningful to say?
I haven't refused to acknowledge anything, I've called out the west. What I haven't acknowledged is your interpretation that "People said Russia would attack if the West behaved as they did, thus Russia is justified in their invasion of Ukraine" as any sort of a reasonable argument.
Please, present a reasonable argument for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I've asked too many times now.
Man, I'm always trying. I don't get it right every time, but I keep trying.
I dunno where your downvote and my upvote came from, but you have my upvote for replying to my comment and for not downvoting me. I appreciate the discussion regardless.
Are there even downvotes on this site? I kind of miss them for the trolls and what not.
You said "Just because you make that statement doesn’t make it true", perhaps clarify which statement you're referring to then, because based on the thread that's the statement I made that you're disputing.
Once again, an alliance that continuously attacks countries in wars of aggression is not defensive regardless of what it says or what the initial motivations were. It's a demonstrably aggressive alliance with a demonstrated history of aggression.
The fact that you continue to refuse to acknowledge this basic fact says volumes.
You made claim that the scholars I reference are not respected geopolitical experts. When I point out a specific geopolitical expert I'm referencing you start going off about name dropping.
It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact that the argument you present is infantile.
I have, go back and read this thread where I've presented the facts already.
I've explained why it's false.
Nice straw man there.
I have done so repeatedly. You are either incapable of understanding of what I wrote or you're unwilling to. Either way it's clear that further discussion is pointless.