Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Biden and others’ comments pertain to pre Crimean invasion Russia, and I’d say they hold up quite well, given that they turned out to be right.
But I concede the point that my analogy is unfair. But in turn, I think the loaded gun thing also doesn’t quite match up with reality. If we planned for Ukraine to enter NATO then it’d be an accurate metaphor. But the fact remains that despite us (the US) telling them that they could, and telling them to forego peace talks by threat of not allowing them to join NATO, behind closed doors we never intended for them to actually join.
Like the criminal punching you, it is not right to attack a foreign country without UN approval. If the attacks on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on should be condemned (and they should), then certainly the invasion of Ukraine should be condemned. But to pretend history started on February 24th, 2022 and that everything happened because Putin is evil, and that we have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and that we didn’t see it coming, and that we couldn’t have prevented it by negotiating the Russia-US security agreement put forth in December 2021, is reductive.
I don’t know which mod removed the comment, but I’m not happy about it. You can’t argue against those people if the mods remove their comments. I want to convince those people that they’re wrong, not push them further into their delusion.
You may want to humor them, but once a poster starts spreading misinformation, not just stupid conclusions from actual facts, I ban and remove their content. Wherever that kind of debate belongs, it ain’t here.
The thing is, some of these people might have a few braincells and just fell for propaganda. Nothing too terrible about that - it would be more effective to have a conversation with them, show them the evidence that they are infact wrong and maybe pull them out of their delusion. By just banning them outright … idk, it keeps the community clean, but they fall deeper into their delusion.
Fair to say that that discussion doesn’t belong here tho, not arguing with that if that is the stance.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
Suppose you sit down next to a hardened criminal. Tough guy, unstable, face tattoos, MS-13 photoshopped on his knuckles, the works. Not an ideal situation, not very stable.
In comes Uncle Sam, telling the criminal “hey, criminal! Realitätsverlust thinks your mother is a hooker, and says they will kill your first-born son” and so on and so forth. I would argue (and so would Biden, and so would Kennan, and so would other foreign policy experts) that the situation is now even less stable.
Now, if the criminal gets up and punches you, they are completely in the wrong, and should be locked up, this goes without saying. But you cannot convince me that after all is said and done you wouldn’t be asking Uncle Sam what the fuck he was thinking aggravating the criminal like that on your behalf.
You fail to see something very obvious - that criminal might still kill me on a whim, because he feels like it. However, if uncle sam comes and points a loaded gun at the guy at any given time, I’m feeling a lot more safe because the guy might be more angry, but he doesn’t want to die.
What was said in 1997 is irrelevant in 2025 - russia was a different country back then. That was before the second chechen war, the invasion of georgia, the bombing of syria and the war against the ukraine. I’m pretty sure both parties would say something differnt these days.
Biden and others’ comments pertain to pre Crimean invasion Russia, and I’d say they hold up quite well, given that they turned out to be right.
But I concede the point that my analogy is unfair. But in turn, I think the loaded gun thing also doesn’t quite match up with reality. If we planned for Ukraine to enter NATO then it’d be an accurate metaphor. But the fact remains that despite us (the US) telling them that they could, and telling them to forego peace talks by threat of not allowing them to join NATO, behind closed doors we never intended for them to actually join.
Like the criminal punching you, it is not right to attack a foreign country without UN approval. If the attacks on Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on should be condemned (and they should), then certainly the invasion of Ukraine should be condemned. But to pretend history started on February 24th, 2022 and that everything happened because Putin is evil, and that we have nothing whatsoever to do with it, and that we didn’t see it coming, and that we couldn’t have prevented it by negotiating the Russia-US security agreement put forth in December 2021, is reductive.
I don’t know which mod removed the comment, but I’m not happy about it. You can’t argue against those people if the mods remove their comments. I want to convince those people that they’re wrong, not push them further into their delusion.
It was me.
You may want to humor them, but once a poster starts spreading misinformation, not just stupid conclusions from actual facts, I ban and remove their content. Wherever that kind of debate belongs, it ain’t here.
The thing is, some of these people might have a few braincells and just fell for propaganda. Nothing too terrible about that - it would be more effective to have a conversation with them, show them the evidence that they are infact wrong and maybe pull them out of their delusion. By just banning them outright … idk, it keeps the community clean, but they fall deeper into their delusion.
Fair to say that that discussion doesn’t belong here tho, not arguing with that if that is the stance.
“Proposing that a country join a defence pact only activated in case of an attack on the country is aggravating any potential aggressors”
Jesus Christ.
“Cartels murdering people in your town? Just don’t talk to the cops, that’s how you stay safe.”
Hey man, take it up with Biden, I’m just relaying the message. Plus, I think “defence” pact is a bit much given what NATO has done in Yugoslavia.
That’s you not ‘just relaying the message’.
Jesus fucking Christ.
Walk me through it. Explain to me why bombing Yugoslavia was ok.
Genocide is bad, even when done by Russian allies.
Radical, I know.