Politics The Hangar Politics Thread

[Old Campaigner]

Any regional power gets a say in events that happen on its door step, particularly when those events are driven by the competition. That's what international diplomacy was about before the uni polar moment.

I didn't say that anyone should look the other way, that's obviously how you think, a projection. I am trying to understand whether any of you have the capacity to reason consistently or whether everything you believe is propaganda.

This was a story long before it made its way into some Facebook news feed you follow.

If you want some balanced understand of what has been happening in Ukraine the Oliver Stone produced Ukraine on Fire (2016) and Revealing Ukraine (2019) are on Rumble at this channel: https://rumble.com/user/GlobalTreePictures?page=2

They’re certainly welcome to have their say, but having a say doesn’t mean annexation of anyone who disagrees with you.

My reasoning is that the invasion of Ukraine is as unjustified as the various US forever wars in the Middle East. No one was really willing to stand up for Iraq beyond some tepid rhetoric but that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t have been the right thing to do. The same applies to Ukraine. It’s just as much a victim of an imperialist power as the various Middle East states that bore the brunt of US meddling. The difference is that now it’s a western friendly nation that is being attacked.

I don’t put much stock in Stone, he’s done some good work but his default position is ‘US foreign involvement bad’ so there’s some broken clock moments where it lines up with some really shitty things the US has done but isn’t capable of acknowledging the rare occasion when the US is on the right side of history.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Where do you get this rubbish from?

Russia. It’s what happens there. Journalists disappear, or turn up with multiple ‘self inflicted’ gunshots to the back of the head, politicians deemed a threat to the regime are jailed or killed or both and the state determines who can run for seats in the Duma

I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume things would be even worse in a recently annexed nation that doesn’t want anything to do with Russia

 

[boncer34]

At the same time that they're the root of all evil, master invaders, they're Keystone cops who can't do anything right.

Just to be clear nobody said they were master invaders. Remove that word from your sentence and then theres 0 reason that cant be true Bruno.

 

[faible]

And the rest, please.

What do you think has happend to Ukraine to date? You clearly have no idea what the actual toll is.

Then I'd like you to have a go at a counterfactual based on the West not meddling.

I'll opt out of your conspiracy angle, thanks.

 

[BrunoV]

Just to be clear nobody said they were master invaders. Remove that word from your sentence and then theres 0 reason that cant be true Bruno.

It's inherent in the positions taken.

Don't you think that an expansionist empire drivern to overthrow Europe would be a little better than overlooking the need to or being unable to drop bombs on critical infrastructure in a context of aerial domination?

This is the expansionist empire we're supposed to be scared of. By the way the one the Germans, who are the EU, were so scared of they wanted to tie the sustainability of their manufacturing sector (and economic engine of the EU) to the supply of Russian gas (which they were committed to well into the conflict until someone blew up Nordstream 2). A weird position to take when you fear the supplier as your invader.

Why do we think Russia is expansionist? Because of Georgia? Crimea? The ultimate subjugation of Chechnya? It's actions in Syria?

Do Russian generals not read the text books?

There are assumptions you need to make in order to engage in the double think. If you don't make the underlying assumptions you're immune to the propaganda.

 

[boncer34]

It's inherent in the positions taken.

Don't you think that an expansionist empire drivern to overthrow Europe would be a little better than overlooking the need to or being unable to drop bombs on critical infrastructure in a context of aerial domination?

This is the expansionist empire we're supposed to be scared of. By the way the one the Germans, who are the EU, were so scared of they wanted to tie the sustainability of its manufacturing sector to the supply of Russian gas (which they were committed to well into the conflict until someone blew up Nordstream 2). A weird position to take when you fear your invader.

Why do we think Russia is expansionist? Because of Georgia? Crimea? The ultimate subjugation of Chechnya? It's actions in Syria?

Do Russian generals not read the text books?

There are assumptions you need to make in order to engage in the double think. If you don't make the underlying assumptions you're immune to the propaganda.

That is a whole lot of words unrelated to anything I've said

 

[faible]

double think

Poor Orwell. The bloke gets quoted by so many people who want to simply build their own reality.

 

[Old Campaigner]

Poor Orwell. The bloke gets quoted by so many people who want to simply build their own reality.

Him and Kafka should start a club

 

[BrunoV]

Russia. It’s what happens there. Journalists disappear, or turn up with multiple ‘self inflicted’ gunshots to the back of the head, politicians deemed a threat to the regime are jailed or killed or both and the state determines who can run for seats in the Duma

I don’t think it’s a stretch to assume things would be even worse in a recently annexed nation that doesn’t want anything to do with Russia

You get this information from Russia? What does that even mean?

Is there some collective Russian hive mind consciousness I have not come across?

 

[Old Campaigner]

You get this information from Russia? What does that even mean?

Is there some collective Russian hive mind consciousness I have not come across?

It’s widely considered to be one of the most dangerous countries on earth to practice journalism (unless you toe the government line of course but that’s propaganda publishing, not journalism)

Media freedom in Russia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Old Campaigner]

And yeah if you get your information from an IV drip of Tucker Carlson posts you probably wouldn’t know about it

 

[Kong]

youre a funny guy, bruno.

 

[BrunoV]

It’s widely considered to be one of the most dangerous countries on earth to practice journalism (unless you toe the government line of course but that’s propaganda publishing, not journalism)

Media freedom in Russia - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And yeah if you get your information from an IV drip of Tucker Carlson posts you probably wouldn’t know about it

I want to start with your second post. It's a real pisser because you went with Tucker Carlson when my avatar was Alex Jones for, what, maybe 4 years now. Alex Jones / Info Wars would have been a better way to undermine my credibility. You know, 'gay frogs' and Sandy Hook. Keep that in mind for next time. Info Wars has just been shut down, too.

I do not rely on any one source. I do not rely on any source. You'll just have to accept what I am saying about myself. It used to be said and understood that truth is the first casualty of war - which was never a partisan statement. I abide by that.

On the topic of Ukraine, I can tell you the names of my go to people for the background geopolitics and the conflict: The Duran, Scott Ritter, Alex Krainer and Lee Stranahan are at the top of my list. Tucker is not particularly good on this issue, it's part of the evolution of his thinking, he still seems to overlook a lot of the historical context. I think he focuses too much on it from an American perspective which distorts how he analyses some of the issues. I listened to his interview with Putin - which I thought Putin did a bad job of, almost like he misread who he was talking to. He seemed geared for an adversarial exchange, not a podcast-like discussion which Tucker was trying to give him. I didn't think he hit the mark with the historical context at the start, either. Did you listen to it or watch it?

Do you know any of the arguments against any of the things you believe? There are usually at least 2 sides to a story. That doesn't mean that they are of equal weight, that's a common misconception (I think driven by stupid media rules that have required 50/50 coverage of politics). It's up to individuals to know the sides and to make up their own minds.

This is what I was getting at when I made reference to Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea and Syria. boncer34, this reference was relevant because the actions taken in these regions are the contemporary examples cited for Russia being an imperial aggressor. But it doesn't really stop there because Putin is often, and incorrectly, said to be wanting to reconstitute the Soviet Union, at least as a land mass under his control (if not the name and ideology). It belies a significant misunderstanding about the Soviet Union and the resentment that many of the former Soviet satellites have toward Russia. Is there any real appreciation for how suicidal it would be to expand the Russian border, bearing in mind that we are also told that Russia's economy is a joke even more so now that it has supposedly been frozen out of the dealing with the West, and to try to control all of these different ethnic groups who hate Russia? It's an absurdity.

Ukraine is different to Georgia, and the other former satellites and there is a reason Russia can take the east without it resulting in a forever war. Ukraine's modern borders were created by Stalin. The country never previously existed. The eastern part of the country is as much Russian if not more 'Russian' than Ukranian in terms of its ethnic make-up - this should not be controversial as its the reason Donbass sought to cede from Ukraine. The Russian presence stretches back centuries when certainly all of the eastern part of Ukraine down to the coast was part of the Russian empire. Crimea was majority Russian which is why there is no serious debate about the referendum in which more than 90% of the region voted to join Russia. Those cities with the Greek names (e.g. Odessa) were developed and named by Catherin the Great (in the late 1700s / early 1800s). In eastern Ukraine down to the coast, the Russians are not finding native populations who despise them, which would happen in Poland, the Baltic, Georgia, for example. These people speak Russian and are culturally Russian. They had no problem being Ukrainian until after the supposed Russian puppet Yanukovic was overthrown and replaced with a US puppet who ushered in a genuinely Banderite-fascist Ukrainian influence on Kiev which started to disenfranchise the east of the country (no moreso than in Donbass where the Azov Battalion was put in charge of the Ukranian side of the conflict - you should try to find the other side of the story about the Azov Batallion and what it represents).

As we all know, Putin was a Soviet intelligence official stationed in East Germany for much of the time that the Soviet Union was breaking itself in its attempted conquest of Afghanistan. This is relevant for a few reasons: first, Putin and his contemporaries (in intelligence, politics and the military) were officials during the invasion of Afghanistan; and second, even if they weren't it is normal for militaries to study their historical actions and those of their competitors. It flies in the face of reason that these people learned nothing from that experience.

A claim is also made that the Russians wanted to maintain a legitimacy among BRICS members many of whom could not be seen to be supporting indiscriminate invasion (in support of separatists). Last time I checked there was absolute nothing wrong with relations between Russia and India and Russia and China, in particular. From memory the Indonesians were also a potential concern.

Ukranian infrastructure is Soviet infrastructure. Russia literally has the plans and blueprints (likely for all of it).

Russia has a much larger much more sophisticated military.

This is some of the background that goes into my assessment of which competing claim to believe:

1. That Russia botched the invasion of Ukraine and was just too incompetent to take out critical infrastructure as part of the initial phase of the invasion; OR
2. That the Russians say they went in light, they say it was because of adherence to a defensive legal doctrine they sought to apply to maintain an argument that the invasion was legal.

I go with 2. I don't believe anyone in order to get there. There is no authoritative source. There cannot be.

But the proof will be in the pudding. The conflict will come to an end. Russia will take at least 20% of the Ukranian land mass. Russia will continue to go from strength to strength economically as it turns its back on the west for good and embraces the billions of people it shares borders with (and who provide virtually never ending markets for the virtually never ending supply of energy Russia possesses). And you'll be told, and will believe, that it's all because some North Koreans did some fighting.

And I can provide a detailed examination of all of the stupid claims about Putin murdering political opponents he doesn't have. His only real opposition are the communists and a militaristic faction that is on his side of the Duma anyway. It's a lot of work though and you're just going to believe the 1 side of the story you want to believe. You don't rate Oliver Stone, so you don't need to bother with the other side of the story. You'll believe the governments who lie about everything and the journalists that get almost every story wrong, instead.

 

[faible]

I want to start with your second post. It's a real pisser because you went with Tucker Carlson when my avatar was Alex Jones for, what, maybe 4 years now. Alex Jones / Info Wars would have been a better way to undermine my credibility. You know, 'gay frogs' and Sandy Hook. Keep that in mind for next time. Info Wars has just been shut down, too.

I do not rely on any one source. I do not rely on any source. You'll just have to accept what I am saying about myself. It used to be said and understood that truth is the first casualty of war - which was never a partisan statement. I abide by that.

On the topic of Ukraine, I can tell you the names of my go to people for the background geopolitics and the conflict: The Duran, Scott Ritter, Alex Krainer and Lee Stranahan are at the top of my list. Tucker is not particularly good on this issue, it's part of the evolution of his thinking, he still seems to overlook a lot of the historical context. I think he focuses too much on it from an American perspective which distorts how he analyses some of the issues. I listened to his interview with Putin - which I thought Putin did a bad job of, almost like he misread who he was talking to. He seemed geared for an adversarial exchange, not a podcast-like discussion which Tucker was trying to give him. I didn't think he hit the mark with the historical context at the start, either. Did you listen to it or watch it?

Do you know any of the arguments against any of the things you believe? There are usually at least 2 sides to a story. That doesn't mean that they are of equal weight, that's a common misconception (I think driven by stupid media rules that have required 50/50 coverage of politics). It's up to individuals to know the sides and to make up their own minds.

This is what I was getting at when I made reference to Georgia, Chechnya, Crimea and Syria. boncer34, this reference was relevant because the actions taken in these regions are the contemporary examples cited for Russia being an imperial aggressor. But it doesn't really stop there because Putin is often, and incorrectly, said to be wanting to reconstitute the Soviet Union, at least as a land mass under his control (if not the name and ideology). It belies a significant misunderstanding about the Soviet Union and the resentment that many of the former Soviet satellites have toward Russia. Is there any real appreciation for how suicidal it would be to expand the Russian border, bearing in mind that we are also told that Russia's economy is a joke even more so now that it has supposedly been frozen out of the dealing with the West, and to try to control all of these different ethnic groups who hate Russia? It's an absurdity.

Ukraine is different to Georgia, and the other former satellites and there is a reason Russia can take the east without it resulting in a forever war. Ukraine's modern borders were created by Stalin. The country never previously existed. The eastern part of the country is as much Russian if not more 'Russian' than Ukranian in terms of its ethnic make-up - this should not be controversial as its the reason Donbass sought to cede from Ukraine. The Russian presence stretches back centuries when certainly all of the eastern part of Ukraine down to the coast was part of the Russian empire. Crimea was majority Russian which is why there is no serious debate about the referendum in which more than 90% of the region voted to join Russia. Those cities with the Greek names (e.g. Odessa) were developed and named by Catherin the Great (in the late 1700s / early 1800s). In eastern Ukraine down to the coast, the Russians are not finding native populations who despise them, which would happen in Poland, the Baltic, Georgia, for example. These people speak Russian and are culturally Russian. They had no problem being Ukrainian until after the supposed Russian puppet Yanukovic was overthrown and replaced with a US puppet who ushered in a genuinely Banderite-fascist Ukrainian influence on Kiev which started to disenfranchise the east of the country (no moreso than in Donbass where the Azov Battalion was put in charge of the Ukranian side of the conflict - you should try to find the other side of the story about the Azov Batallion and what it represents).

As we all know, Putin was a Soviet intelligence official stationed in East Germany for much of the time that the Soviet Union was breaking itself in its attempted conquest of Afghanistan. This is relevant for a few reasons: first, Putin and his contemporaries (in intelligence, politics and the military) were officials during the invasion of Afghanistan; and second, even if they weren't it is normal for militaries to study their historical actions and those of their competitors. It flies in the face of reason that these people learned nothing from that experience.

A claim is also made that the Russians wanted to maintain a legitimacy among BRICS members many of whom could not be seen to be supporting indiscriminate invasion (in support of separatists). Last time I checked there was absolute nothing wrong with relations between Russia and India and Russia and China, in particular. From memory the Indonesians were also a potential concern.

Ukranian infrastructure is Soviet infrastructure. Russia literally has the plans and blueprints (likely for all of it).

Russia has a much larger much more sophisticated military.

This is some of the background that goes into my assessment of which competing claim to believe:

1. That Russia botched the invasion of Ukraine and was just too incompetent to take out critical infrastructure as part of the initial phase of the invasion; OR
2. That the Russians say they went in light, they say it was because of adherence to a defensive legal doctrine they sought to apply to maintain an argument that the invasion was legal.

I go with 2. I don't believe anyone in order to get there. There is no authoritative source. There cannot be.

But the proof will be in the pudding. The conflict will come to an end. Russia will take at least 20% of the Ukranian land mass. Russia will continue to go from strength to strength economically as it turns its back on the west for good and embraces the billions of people it shares borders with (and who provide virtually never ending markets for the virtually never ending supply of energy Russia possesses). And you'll be told, and will believe, that it's all because some North Koreans did some fighting.

And I can provide a detailed examination of all of the stupid claims about Putin murdering political opponents he doesn't have. His only real opposition are the communists and a militaristic faction that is on his side of the Duma anyway. It's a lot of work though and you're just going to believe the 1 side of the story you want to believe. You don't rate Oliver Stone, so you don't need to bother with the other side of the story. You'll believe the governments who lie about everything and the journalists that get almost every story wrong, instead.

TD;LR thanks to ChatGPT:

• The writer is frustrated that their avatar was misrepresented as Tucker Carlson instead of Alex Jones, which would have been more effective for discrediting them.
• The writer claims they don’t rely on any single source of information, and instead trust their own understanding of truth, which they believe is often distorted in times of war.
• For information on Ukraine, they reference The Duran, Scott Ritter, Alex Krainer, and Lee Stranahan as reliable sources, criticizing Tucker Carlson for his narrow American perspective and lack of historical context.
• The writer emphasizes the importance of understanding opposing arguments, suggesting that media should not present issues as always requiring equal weight on both sides.
• They discuss the history of Russian imperialism, arguing that claims Russia is trying to recreate the Soviet Union are misguided due to the deep resentment from former Soviet satellite states.
• The writer explains that Ukraine's modern borders were drawn by Stalin and that the eastern part of the country has a strong historical and cultural connection to Russia, with many ethnic Russians in the region.
• The Crimea referendum in 2014 is highlighted, where over 90% of voters supported joining Russia, which the writer argues was not controversial given the region's ethnic makeup.
• The writer critiques the portrayal of the Azov Battalion and its nationalist ideology, suggesting that there is more to the story than commonly presented.
• Putin’s background in Soviet intelligence, particularly in East Germany, is noted, along with the claim that Russia learned lessons from its experience in Afghanistan.
• The writer challenges the notion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was botched, instead suggesting that Russia’s approach was legally and strategically motivated.
• They predict that Russia will eventually take significant portions of Ukrainian land and continue to grow economically by pivoting away from the West and aligning with countries like China and India.
• The writer rejects claims that Putin has murdered political opponents, asserting that his opposition is minimal and mainly within his own political faction.
• The writer criticizes mainstream media and government narratives, asserting that the public will believe what they are told despite the complexities of the situation.

Bolded are the key points I'm taking from this post.

 

[BrunoV]

TD;LR thanks to ChatGPT:

• The writer is frustrated that their avatar was misrepresented as Tucker Carlson instead of Alex Jones, which would have been more effective for discrediting them.
• The writer claims they don’t rely on any single source of information, and instead trust their own understanding of truth, which they believe is often distorted in times of war.
• For information on Ukraine, they reference The Duran, Scott Ritter, Alex Krainer, and Lee Stranahan as reliable sources, criticizing Tucker Carlson for his narrow American perspective and lack of historical context.
• The writer emphasizes the importance of understanding opposing arguments, suggesting that media should not present issues as always requiring equal weight on both sides.
• They discuss the history of Russian imperialism, arguing that claims Russia is trying to recreate the Soviet Union are misguided due to the deep resentment from former Soviet satellite states.
• The writer explains that Ukraine's modern borders were drawn by Stalin and that the eastern part of the country has a strong historical and cultural connection to Russia, with many ethnic Russians in the region.
• The Crimea referendum in 2014 is highlighted, where over 90% of voters supported joining Russia, which the writer argues was not controversial given the region's ethnic makeup.
• The writer critiques the portrayal of the Azov Battalion and its nationalist ideology, suggesting that there is more to the story than commonly presented.
• Putin’s background in Soviet intelligence, particularly in East Germany, is noted, along with the claim that Russia learned lessons from its experience in Afghanistan.
• The writer challenges the notion that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was botched, instead suggesting that Russia’s approach was legally and strategically motivated.
• They predict that Russia will eventually take significant portions of Ukrainian land and continue to grow economically by pivoting away from the West and aligning with countries like China and India.
• The writer rejects claims that Putin has murdered political opponents, asserting that his opposition is minimal and mainly within his own political faction.
• The writer criticizes mainstream media and government narratives, asserting that the public will believe what they are told despite the complexities of the situation.

Bolded are the key points I'm taking from this post.

Ironically enough the first 2 points are just wrong. The second one is key.

It's not an understanding of truth. It a balancing of factors to decide on what is more likely to be true than not.

The rest is an accurate summary.

 

[yodellinhank]

As we all know, Putin was a Soviet intelligence official stationed in East Germany for much of the time that the Soviet Union was breaking itself in its attempted conquest of Afghanistan. This is relevant for a few reasons: first, Putin and his contemporaries (in intelligence, politics and the military) were officials during the invasion of Afghanistan; and second, even if they weren't it is normal for militaries to study their historical actions and those of their competitors. It flies in the face of reason that these people learned nothing from that experience.

If may digress, could we not use the same logic toward our coach, Bradley David Walter Scott?