James wrote:I'm not going to go this far down the rabbit hole of pros vs. cons of each side of Euromaidan. Both sides of the argument have legitimate grievances and both sides have legitimate problems. For example, we can spend some time discussing potential good that came of Yanukovych's interests but we could also spend time talking about awful things he did as well—ways in which he very poorly represented a subset of Ukraine. You want to boil the pro-US and pro-Russia sides of this argument down into something which can be measured on a scale, but truth is what worked for one person—one subset of Ukraine—was not right for another. Truth is there are pros and cons to being pro-Europe and pros and cons to being pro-Russia (as a country)
It is wrong and it is intellectually dishonest of you to say this. You of all people ought to know better than to engage in this kind of lazy ethical subjectivism. If it was really the case that 'what worked for one person... was not right for another', and that the pros and cons could not be measured against each other, there would be no basis for making any sort of public policy at all, or indeed even engaging in this debate. This struck me on first read as an attempt to avoid any substantive debate altogether.
If you actually are interested in understanding my position as opposed to just spewing calumny and declaring my views intolerable, or 'demonising' or whatnot, you would actually engage with the substance of my arguments rather than just throw down
j'accuses of Russian propagandism.
James wrote:As to what you've specifically written, to summarize very bad involvement from the west while outlining Russia's as largely positive—especially the manner in which Russia has worked with Ukraine regarding resources and money—seems a one-sided reading to me. Again, not to defend the West/Europe, here. You're disgusted with them, and I'm disgusted with both them and Russia. I know our positions here are unlikely to change through sharing of a few links, however, as we've decided to come to different conclusions.
You know, it might be of some interest to know how you would characterise the economic relationship between Russia and the Ukraine prior to 2014, and on which data you base this interpretation. Or at least on what grounds you summarily dismiss my argument. Too much to ask?
James wrote:You are leaving so much out. Even a scan through the Wikipedia article produces a wild range of additional information, each to be individually contested and researched, that paints a more complex story with agents on both sides trying to spin the outcome in their favor. The black boxes were handed over to Malaysia and an investigation is taking place. A preliminary report is due mid-September from the Dutch Safety Board and a criminal investigation appears to be taking place as well. Let's see what happens before we get too worked up about it.
A lot of the 'information' Wikipedia cites is, at this point, speculation. I happen to agree that a
fair investigation will be needed, and that we should await the results before pronouncing judgement. I made no judgement, and indeed acknowledged that the pro-Russian militias might indeed turn out to be guilty. But if you really don't find the Ukrainian government's unsourced statements and actions at least somewhat suspicious, or see the potential conflicts of interest in a Dutch investigation, I submit to you that, for all your attempts to appear even-handed, you're projecting your own bias onto me.
James wrote:You are, however, grossly generalizing that the entirety of the Western media didn't give a damn about the people who died.
They don't.
Oh, maybe some individuals do care. But the networks as a whole care about two things: profit, and keeping their privileges with various parts of the Washington establishment. And I guarantee you that the American political class doesn't give a rat's hindquarters about those 300 people.
James wrote:You're misrepresenting me here. I'm not really going to dive into this because I don't want to bridge any inappropriate barriers between personal life on Facebook and what you choose to share here, but I will make one observation: how many people, really, are willing to confront, and potentially offend, their friend on Facebook about subjects that friend feels passionately about? And once you've narrowed that group down, how many know enough about the subject to speak? And then narrow that down again to how many people have a significantly differing view?
Who's misrepresenting who, here? I have been urging against leaping to conclusions about MH17 all along, and when and because I did so, you accused me then of spreading Russian propaganda. And now you're trying to throw that same argument back in my face, as though I haven't been using that exact argument all along! It doesn't matter whether you do it on FB or here; do you have any idea how condescending, sanctimonious, and just downright disrespectful that sounds?
James wrote:NATO, Russia, the US—they all have special interests and they're willing to exploit others to realize them. But all are more complex than a completely negative narrative (especially in an effort to demonize one in absence of others relative to the same subject). And that's beside the point. Why do I care? Because that doesn't justify Russia's actions anymore than it would justify similar actions undertaken by another neighbor or power.
Why should you care?
Because they are part of the context in which Russia is making these decisions, maybe? Well, if you're just bent on blaming Russia regardless of the circumstances, I guess you don't need to care.
And let's keep the context in mind here, so's you don't change the subject on me. I brought it up because
you were assuming, groundlessly, a neutral, legitimate, independent and self-sufficient Ukrainian government that does not exist. The current government was bought, paid-for, beholden to, all but
appointed by the CIA and NATO. You did hear the Nuland tapes, didn't you?
James wrote:Crimea. Russian soldiers controlled the region while this vote took place. Looking at it, do I think Crimea would have probably voted in that direction anyway? Highly likely. If not due to cultural interests, for plenty of other reasons associated with having troops in your backyard. Security matters. But I'm not going to pretend it is legitimate. And frankly, all of that is noise anyway—to support a nuanced argument here is to accept the means through which that vote was facilitated on Russia's part.
Again, to recap, you're fine with accepting nuanced arguments when it comes to evaluating American justifications for perpetrating death and destruction on Iraq.
But you're
not fine with accepting nuanced arguments when it comes to evaluating Russian justifications for
not perpetrating death and destruction on Crimea.
And I'm the one with the double standard.
Whew! Glad that's cleared up, then...
James wrote:Ukraine. Eh, we just disagree here. That's fine. Putin can destabilize the region significantly and win in the end, and doing so allows him to achieve his objective while skirting the most detrimental kinds of international involvement. This government that he doesn't want—it can crumble. The less people trust it, the more they associate it with war and instability, the better it plays for Russia when they're of a position to restore stability (through absorption of land or a pro-Russia government). Russia can even create that instability and later play the hero in rebuilding and restoring order. And troops/representatives within Ukraine is the perfect solution to this problem. You approach this as if this isn't the sort of thing Russia would do, but I just don't see it. But I do see how this situation has already been unfolding, and it fits Putin's playbook.
Which just goes to show you haven't been paying attention to what we've been doing all along. The destabilisation in Ukraine is
our fault, not Putin's. As a matter of objective historical fact.
Mearsheimer's version, being realist, is largely the correct version. This government is
precisely the result of our interference, and I personally don't feel under any obligation to accept it as legitimate - nor, obviously, does Russia.
James wrote:You went into this a little more with Shikanosuke below, but you're discounting too much information. Sure, you've got reports from NATO (which, despite its problems, is not the great lying propaganda machine)
Um, hello? Yugoslavia? Iraq? Libya? Syria?
NATO's lies led to the destruction of Serbia's economy and a breakaway state (Kosovo) whose government deals in drugs, organs and slaves. It led to the destruction of Iraq, the displacement of millions, the radicalisation of Iraq's Sunnis and the creation of ISIS. Its lies and propaganda led to the genocide of more than 40,000 black Libyans by the rebels it supported, by claiming the blacks were pro-Gadhafi. And Syria? Don't get me started.
NATO's track record is kind of against you on that score. And I'm obviously not the only person who thinks they're lying
in this case.
James wrote:For example, earlier you claimed these pro-Russia elements were armed with Soviet era equipment. That was a stretch at the time, but now we've got plenty of on-the-ground reporting from NPR, BBC, and no doubt other news entities which I don't follow, pointing out that there is plenty of perfectly modern Russian military equipment in use—in use by people who are speaking with thick Russian accents.
Great. Good that you know how to make unsupported claims from news sources you
don't follow, as well as government mouthpieces which have every reason to lie. That's a skill I never learned how to master.
But the
thick Russian accents, oh, damn. There's a dead giveaway somebody's up to no good right there. Every time. So says Hollywood; it must be true!
So let's just ignore the well-documented fact that most of the people - between 60 and 75% - who
actually live in the Donetsk and Lugansk regions speak Russian as their first language and are bound to speak in strong Russian accents, and that most of Ukraine's political class speaks either Russian or Surzhyk (a dialect of Russian heavily influenced by Ukrainian) as their first language, not proper Ukrainian. Both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych have been made fun of in the state media for their accents in the past. This is why local context is kind of important.
You keep complaining that I'm misrepresenting you about Russia - but do you even read what you write before you hit 'Submit'?
James wrote:And then reporting of the much more expensive war equipment moving around and crossing the border. Whatever's happening here, it is happening with Putin's blessing and encouragement (if not a direct effort on his part to deploy military specialists—which I no longer see a good argument for). We can just disagree here, and allow the coming months to reveal more information.
But you were crying 'invasion'.
Proxy war is not invasion.
So I don't know who you think you're disagreeing with. Personally, I have no doubt that Russian equipment and people are crossing the border to fight in Ukraine. Probably a significant number of those have family and friends on the other side, who are being attacked by the army. But I haven't seen any proof of Putin's direct involvement from anything more reputable than a celebrity-chasing tabloid. Certainly a politically-significant contingent of Russians want Putin to be
more involved, not less.