Thoughts on Ukraine

[Pringles]

I feel like the debate moderator 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Pringles

[mark2]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

That's Common Law. I believe they use the Civic Code (based on the Napoleonic Code) in Ukraine and Russia, which is not quite so simple in that regard. That aside, they're currently in a position where actually presenting such evidence is prohibitive, by logistics, if such evidence DOES exist (which I have not CLAIMED to know, either way).

It is common law.

It also applies here.

Until evidence is provided, no, Ukraine is not a major nuclear power. Presenting evidence (if it exists) would not be prohibitive at all in this case; many things were believed to be false before proven true. This does not mean you have to defend Putin with "well it COULD be true! THERE'S A CHANCE!!!!!!" because using the same logic I could listen to InfoWars my whole life and believe that everything that Alex Jones says COULD BE TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kitten]

Just now, Pringles said:

 

Based Gerald Ford. Except the gaffe is pretty bad lol

[Pringles]

Just now, Kitten said:

Based Gerald Ford. Except the gaffe is pretty bad lol

Prongle Gaffe Moment: "There is no, Russo-Ukrainian invasion imminent. And there never will be under a Prongle Administration."

[Kitten]

1 minute ago, Pringles said:

Prongle Gaffe Moment: "There is no, Russo-Ukrainian invasion imminent. And there never will be under a Prongle Administration."

Your secretary of state named Kitten disagrees with you and flips off Putin at the next summit 😛

 

[Kitten]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

It looks like you only read a small part of my post before making that cheeky response.

No I read your post 🙂

[Hestia]

 

[vcczar]

Watched Biden's speech on Ukraine. Didn't really say much that wasn't expected. I think the most notable part was how difficult of a time Joe Biden had speaking. He struggled saying "region" and other words. I'm now about 70% sure he isn't running for reelection. He's been noticeably degrading since Jan 2021. I think he can still operate well as a president, especially considering his administration includes more people than himself, but it's getting harder to watch him speak. 

I feel sorry for him. Had he never run for president, he'd be remembered for having been a 30-year-old US Senator or likable VP for Obama. He's going to be remembered for being decrepit, whether he ends up being a good president or not. 

[Hestia]

46 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Watched Biden's speech on Ukraine. Didn't really say much that wasn't expected. I think the most notable part was how difficult of a time Joe Biden had speaking. He struggled saying "region" and other words. I'm now about 70% sure he isn't running for reelection. He's been noticeably degrading since Jan 2021. I think he can still operate well as a president, especially considering his administration includes more people than himself, but it's getting harder to watch him speak. 

I feel sorry for him. Had he never run for president, he'd be remembered for having been a 30-year-old US Senator or likable VP for Obama. He's going to be remembered for being decrepit, whether he ends up being a good president or not. 

I think he struggled at the beginning - I wonder if the teleprompter was running fast or something. It got noticeably better as time went on. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

To be fair, public recognition of a contested, but de facto self-controlled (more or less) nation by a bigger power as an aggressive (or at least, assertive) diplomatic gesture, and a possible casus belli for a, "defensive war," is nothing new, and the U.S. and others have done it too. *cough* Taiwan *cough*

That being said, as I said above, saying Ukraine is NOT a nation, is actually FAR more concerning of a gesture (even though the U.S. did say THAT, too, about the PRC prior to 1975), and, as I pointed out with the recent other examples I gave in my last post, and many historical ones that could be added, easily, that rhetoric is usually the pretense to nasty actions done with a feeling of impunity (or, at least, threatening so to do), at the very least.

They are claiming the entire regions under the names of DPR and LPR - including current Ukrainian controlled territory. That could lead to a broader pretext for war against Ukraine. I think that is pretty concerning of a gesture in and of itself. 

[vcczar]

10 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I think he struggled at the beginning - I wonder if the teleprompter was running fast or something. It got noticeably better as time went on. 

I just don't think he should use a teleprompter if he can't use them. He should just read off paper or speak off the top of his head or something. One has to be an effective communicator. Another thing he could do is just have someone else speak it for him. I don't think it is necessary that he gives the speech. Maybe pre-recording is better? It's just kind of embarrassing. 

[Hestia]

Just now, Patine said:

Yes, I realize, ultimately the gestures are probably intertwined. Like, in my analog, from 1949 to 1975, the U.S. ultimately saw the PRC as still being, "rightful," Kuomintang territory, and both Pentagon strategists and the Chiang Government had several plans on the drawing board to take it back - by military force. But the looming presence of the USSR to the north, and other U.S. military sinkholes (like Vietnam and the rest of Indochina) meant that never happened.

I think these are pretty clearly different scenarios - even if reasonings may be similar. While the US may have had plans to try it, China is a huge nation and definitely not one to take lightly. Ukraine is a much smaller territory being threatened by a larger power who views them as illegitimate. One isn't necessarily better than the other, but it's clear Ukraine is in quite a bit more danger. You keep bringing it back to American analogs in other time periods when it's not particularly relevant to what's happening. 1975 is almost 50 years ago by now. 

[Hestia]

Just now, vcczar said:

I just don't think he should use a teleprompter if he can't use them. He should just read off paper or speak off the top of his head or something. One has to be an effective communicator. Another thing he could do is just have someone else speak it for him. I don't think it is necessary that he gives the speech. Maybe pre-recording is better? It's just kind of embarrassing. 

I guess I didn't get the same message you did. It didn't seem very bad to me - I know he has a stutter too so it makes it more pronounced. I think it's pretty necessary that the President gives the speech on a major foreign policy topic to show unity of the nation and give the message to the people. Ultimately, I think you may be overemphasizing that part a bit - I saw online most people thought it went well besides the first stumbles. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

"History doesn't always repeat itself, but it rhymes,"

-Samuel Clement, aka, Mark Twain (my favourite quote by him, and the reason you, and others looking for such, "perfect matches," in my analogs, and condemning them off-hand, is such a flawed way of responding, just to let you know)

Thanks for letting me know. No point did I say that I was condemning them off-hand, but I'm glad to know that's all you bothered to look into my points of view. It's a flawed way of responding, just to let you know.

[DakotaHale]

What happened on these days? (Besides 21 Feb)

 

[Hestia]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

Actually, this is not true, at all, I was taking just taking a moment to clarify this issue. I hadn't dismissed your viewpoints or not bothered to look into them. I just responded in more detail ,yet.

You said that I had a flawed way of reasoning - believe it or not, even if I may have a different way of reasoning things, it may still be entirely rational. I'm just getting tired of veiled references to past instances that have little connection with what's actually happening. It makes it seem like you're trivializing it or trying to draw attention away from what's actually happening, even if that is not your intention. By trying to tie it to an invasion of China (that never happened), it seems like you're implicitly arguing that Russia won't invade Ukraine, when they pretty much already have by sending people into Donbas overnight - not to mention everything else surrounding Ukraine. Again, even if that isn't your intention. That's my point of view.

[mark2]

40 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He should just read off paper or speak off the top of his head or something.

letting Joe speak off of the top of his head is how we get corn pop. paper, pre-recording or something else is the way to go if he's gonna stay POTUS and keep making speeches.

[DakotaHale]

Omw to Ukraine rn. Gonna settle this

[DakotaHale]

10 minutes ago, mark2 said:

letting Joe speak off of the top of his head is how we get corn pop. paper, pre-recording or something else is the way to go if he's gonna stay POTUS and keep making speeches.

If you don't want Joe Biden speaking from his head then you ain't black and you're as dumb as the poor kids

[Hestia]

23 minutes ago, Patine said:

Let me lay it on the table, CLEARLY. I not trivializing anything. I am just not seeing the big picture in EXACTLY the way you want me to. If this invasion is NOT some massive ploy for unknown or unprecedented effect, people WILL DIE, SUFFER, BE RENDERED HOMELESS, and there will be DESTRUCTION AND CHAOS, and probably a setup for more. The thing is, Putin is pulling the trigger and opportunistically taking advantage of a longer-term issue that began before he had a direct hand in the affair. Ukraine has been threatening to pull itself apart from independence since 1991, because of political mismanagement, agitation aggressively by both Ukrainian Nationalists and Russophiles. Russophiles appealed to Russia (even back in the Yeltsin Days), and Ukrainian Nationalists appealed to NATO and the EU. The 2014 Maiden Revolt was actually, though not commonly viewed that way in the West, like a successful take on the January 6, 2021, Capitol Revolt. Putin's role in 2014, and now, was later, and very opportunistic, and vulture. U.S. military intervention, if it happened, would only make things worse.

The thing is, in this, and other issues like it, political and military leaders on all sides are pompous and detached asses advised by soulless sociopaths with agendas more concerned with power grabs, oneupmanship, geopolitical alignments, and resource and land grabs, and trying to JUSTIFY them as being good and virtuous, and having the upper hand. And, the typical propaganda-based viewpoint that one leader (or alliance of leaders) must be stood firmly behind as having, "the right," while the others have, "the wrong," is GARBAGE. PEOPLE WILL DIE, but there will no, 'right," or, "wrong," in a moral, sense - all leaders involved will have blood on their hands - and probably get away with their repugnant crimes, like is is so common across the board. I would like to this whole thing avoided, but frankly, I don't trust Putin, Biden, Zelensky, or anyone else involved at the top leadership levels (two long-standing war criminals and a comedian?) to come to any resolution that will be anything short of a monstrosity. My attitude is out of frustration for why these things keep happening - and are ALLOWED to keep happening. My sense of justice DOES scream, but as you want it too.

I think the biggest problem I have is that sometimes your tactics mirror what you can see by people online trying to trivialize what's happening in Ukraine. I'm not saying, to be clear, that that is what you are trying to do - just saying that's where I think my own hackles get raised. They say "US invaded Iraq in 2003 so really it's okay if Russia does this now" when it's not an X leads to Y situation. 

First, the Maidan is not really similar to the Capitol Revolt. They were peaceful protestors that mostly stuck to the Maidan Square area until they were fired upon by police. Were there provocateurs on both sides? Assuredly. However, a protest is a protest and they didn't storm any government buildings with legislators or the President in them through its duration. I'm sure you know as well as I that the regime at the time brought in people to specifically create fear and kill protesters in Kyiv. Killing your own people (peaceful protestors) removes any sort of right to elected office, in my own personal opinion. 

Second, mentioning US intervention is unhelpful. We aren't intervening, so there's no point to mention it at all. It just reeks of trying to find some way to scratch at the US when, in reality, we haven't really done that much in Ukraine than provide defensive weapons. 

You are right that there are no rights and wrongs in war - there is only shades of grey. It is important to remember who starts it, though. I'm not going to fault Ukraine for drawing a red line at the carving up of their nation - when, we don't even know if, say, taking the Donbas, would actually convince Russia not to go for more. In fact, showing that weakness may lead them to make a grab for more. For now, Ukraine lays far, far closer to the 'right' spectrum than the 'wrong'. Russia is the opposite. When war actually starts, I am confident as you say that there will be a lot more shades of grey involved.

You're unintentionally making it a black versus white (Right Versus Wrong) argument, and it's not. By saying that 'both sides are doing/have done bad things', you're letting Russia off the hook with the vastly worse things they are doing to Ukraine. I'm sure you agree with me that this should be resolved diplomatically - there's only one party in this whole situation who has agreed to do that, and it's Ukraine. 

Edited February 22, 2022 by Hestia

[Pringles]

42 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

If you don't want Joe Biden speaking from his head then you ain't black and you're as dumb as the poor kids

Ay  yoo... WHATCHU WANNA TELL JOE BYRON right now....

[DakotaHale]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Ay  yoo... WHATCHU WANNA TELL JOE BYRON right now....

ABCDEFU ADN YOUR MOM

[Pringles]

20 minutes ago, DakotaHale said:

ABCDEFU ADN YOUR MOM

WASSUP BABY

[Hestia]

Russian convoys have been moving north from Crimea today, south from Belarus, and towards Kharkiv from the east.

Local text messaging, calls, and internet are down in the Donbas area

Kharkiv and Kyiv international airports are closed or are closing tonight

Donetsk + Luhansk have asked for Russian military assistance to 'Ukrainian aggression'

Pray/send good thoughts your way to the people of Ukraine. It may be a tough night. 

[MrPotatoTed]

On 2/22/2022 at 4:49 PM, Hestia said:

I think the biggest problem I have is that sometimes your tactics mirror what you can see by people online trying to trivialize what's happening in Ukraine. I'm not saying, to be clear, that that is what you are trying to do - just saying that's where I think my own hackles get raised. They say "US invaded Iraq in 2003 so really it's okay if Russia does this now" when it's not an X leads to Y situation. 

First, the Maidan is not really similar to the Capitol Revolt. They were peaceful protestors that mostly stuck to the Maidan Square area until they were fired upon by police. Were there provocateurs on both sides? Assuredly. However, a protest is a protest and they didn't storm any government buildings with legislators or the President in them through its duration. I'm sure you know as well as I that the regime at the time brought in people to specifically create fear and kill protesters in Kyiv. Killing your own people (peaceful protestors) removes any sort of right to elected office, in my own personal opinion. 

Second, mentioning US intervention is unhelpful. We aren't intervening, so there's no point to mention it at all. It just reeks of trying to find some way to scratch at the US when, in reality, we haven't really done that much in Ukraine than provide defensive weapons. 

You are right that there are no rights and wrongs in war - there is only shades of grey. It is important to remember who starts it, though. I'm not going to fault Ukraine for drawing a red line at the carving up of their nation - when, we don't even know if, say, taking the Donbas, would actually convince Russia not to go for more. In fact, showing that weakness may lead them to make a grab for more. For now, Ukraine lays far, far closer to the 'right' spectrum than the 'wrong'. Russia is the opposite. When war actually starts, I am confident as you say that there will be a lot more shades of grey involved.

You're unintentionally making it a black versus white (Right Versus Wrong) argument, and it's not. By saying that 'both sides are doing/have done bad things', you're letting Russia off the hook with the vastly worse things they are doing to Ukraine. I'm sure you agree with me that this should be resolved diplomatically - there's only one party in this whole situation who has agreed to do that, and it's Ukraine. 

I think you’ve successfully touched on what is so often lost on anti-war activists — not that you are advocating in favor of war, of course.

But so often the casualties, costs, and outcomes of war are decried — by people who never considered the casualties, costs, and outcomes of ignorant pacifism.

Choosing not to act is still a choice — and one we are as responsible for as any other action we might take.