Jump to content

Ukraine: It’s starting…


Ser Scot A Ellison

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Sure, and the same can be said of russia or the usa, what is the difference for people not from the usa?

I don’t claim the US is perfect but the US does care what people think of it internationally.  Do the Chinese or Russians?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maithanet said:

And Putin knows this.  I am growing more pessimistic that this is going to just be a situation where Russia takes another bite out of Ukraine and then waits a little while for the West to look elsewhere.  I hope I'm wrong, but Putin's rhetoric the past few days has been incredibly belligerent, and a full on assault on the whole country is feeling increasingly likely. 

It makes more sense to take a small bite and wait for the next chance to do it again, but Putin is running out of time to cement his legacy. He’s akin to an old sports owner who will do anything to win a championship before he dies. Rational decision making can go out the window in those situations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t claim the US is perfect but the US does care what people think of it internationally.  Do the Chinese or Russians?

Do they really care? Not from my perspective. And i think china does care about that, and if they achive the position that the usa has, they have more insentive to care.

I want to make clear though, i dont support china or russia or the usa hegemony. 

I just think peoñle from the us have this perspective of being the benevolent ones when compared to other "super" nations. I disagree with that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t claim the US is perfect but the US does care what people think of it internationally.  Do the Chinese or Russians?

The Chinese absolutely care about what others think of it internationally. I'm not sure what the point of this questioning is; is it okay if they think about what others think, even if they're not changing?

What they especially want to ensure is that others don't stop them or oppose them, and are quite happily willing to do fairly brutal things to get what they want done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Conflicting Thought said:

I just think peoñle from the us have this perspective of being the benevolent ones when compared to other "super" nations. I disagree with that

Perfect benevolence doesn’t exist.  Never has.  China is currently purging people for being Muslim and not Han.  That’s really who you want as a global hegemon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Hindsight saying that they should have done more and were too weak is entirely my point. I'm sure that at the time I thought Obama was fairly reasonable on Ukraine because I probably wasn't paying crazy amounts of attention to it, but it's definitely the case that a whole lot of people - Biden among them - thought it was too weak. 

And as it turned out, it was WAY too weak. 

Because my point is such hindsight is, fundamentally, revisionist history.  And no, it is not definitely the case that Biden nor Blinken nor "a whole lot of people" thought Obama was being "way too weak."  And it is certainly not the case that either of them - or most of those within the administration (again, many of which are the exact same people dealing with this right now as Biden's administration is essentially Obama's third term, especially when it comes to foreign policy) - would characterize Obama's foreign policy posture generally nor in the case of Russia as "feckless" or too "passive." 

Bottomline, you are making this up.  I don't really know why, it's not like Blinken and especially not Biden have ever expressed such a schism with Obama on Russia or anything else, but regardless all you're serving with this line of argument and rhetoric are the absurd hawks that undoubtedly would have just made things a whole hell of a lot worse.

45 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Blinken, one year out of his time with Obama. Hopefully you have clicks for Frontline.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/interview/antony-blinken/

Yikes.  First, there really needs to be a general clarification on citation etiquette here.  You just linked a long-ass interview in which at least 95% of it is Blinken defending Obama and the decisions made therein - which is also defending his own record of course.  While I wasted my time reading through the whole transcript it in this case, it is incumbent on you to specifically quote what you're referring to in such a source instead of expecting others to comb through dozens of pages of a transcript to identify what the hell you're talking about. 

(Also, maybe it's just my browser, but both this and the Brennan interview transcript you previously cited from PBS were incredibly annoying to scroll through and I'm unable to quote portions myself.  While this obviously isn't your fault, it certainly only furthers my frustration.)

Second, please stop just posting links and acting as if you've "cited" your demonstrably inaccurate assertions when such links prove just the opposite.  It's intellectually disingenuous, to put it charitably.  Blinken slightly hinted that he disagreed with Obama's decision not to arm Ukraine at that time (which there were obvious reasons for, namely the instability and fragility of the new regime at the time).  That is far - FAR - from Blinken in any way characterizing Obama's response to Russia in 2014 as feckless or weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Perfect benevolence doesn’t exist.  Never has.  China is currently purging people for being Muslim and not Han.  That’s really who you want as a global hegemon?

The usa has done that to, and nor only in their country, but all over,for a long time. Directly and inderectly supporting wirh money weapoms, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Because my point is such hindsight is, fundamentally, revisionist history.  And no, it is not definitely the case that Biden nor Blinken nor "a whole lot of people" thought Obama was being "way too weak."  And it is certainly not the case that either of them - or most of those within the administration (again, many of which are the exact same people dealing with this right now as Biden's administration is essentially Obama's third term, especially when it comes to foreign policy) - would characterize Obama's foreign policy posture generally nor in the case of Russia as "feckless" or too "passive."

Sorry, in the future I'll understand that when I link things you won't bother reading them. Thanks!

The WaPo article indicated a number of people though Obama's policy was too passive. Brennan as well. Blinken said he disagreed with Obama, but at the end of the day it's his job to bring policy choices and then implement what was chosen - but it was clear he didn't think what they were doing was right. Obama has been criticized by a whole lot of people as being too soft on foreign policy, both now and at the time he did it. 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Bottomline, you are making this up.  I don't really know why, it's not like Blinken and especially not Biden have ever expressed such a schism with Obama on Russia or anything else, but regardless all you're serving with this line of argument and rhetoric are the absurd hawks that undoubtedly would have just made things a whole hell of a lot worse.

I don't see how giving Ukraine more weapons and giving Russia more sanctions would have made things worse. Especially since that's exactly what we're doing right now. Or are you under the opinion that it's Biden's fault that Russia is invading now?

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yikes.  First, there really needs to be a general clarification on citation etiquette here.  You just linked a long-ass interview in which at least 95% of it is Blinken defending Obama and the decisions made therein - which is also defending his own record of course.  While I wasted my time reading through the whole transcript it in this case, it is incumbent on you to specifically quote what you're referring to in such a source instead of expecting others to comb through dozens of pages of a transcript to identify what the hell you're talking about. 

I'll again keep that under advisement regarding your attention span

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Second, please stop just posting links and acting as if you've "cited" your demonstrably inaccurate assertions when such links prove just the opposite.  It's intellectually disingenuous, to put it charitably.  Blinken slightly hinted that he disagreed with Obama's decision not to arm Ukraine at that time (which there were obvious reasons for, namely the instability and fragility of the new regime at the time).  That is far - FAR - from Blinken in any way characterizing Obama's response to Russia in 2014 as feckless or weak.

I didn't say that Blinken thought it was feckless. I did say that he thought it was weak. 

I characterized it as feckless, because it was without feck. That's my view, though it appears shared by a lot of Republicans at the time and several democrats. And it's clear that Biden thought it was a mistake, and thought so at the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kalibuster said:

This is pretty brutal.

Ya.

2 hours ago, JEORDHl said:

Putin has been hoarding reserves, getting out of the US dollar comparative to before, streamlining costs, etc, all to have a war chest [so to speak] that hedges against sanctions.

I've been reading occasional pieces like that for a few years now too, including in the LRB and the Guardian.

What I can't wrap my brain around though, is how since sometime in the Obama era I began to perceive Russia as a real threat to the US and Europe, one that was actually waging war already against us, while the reichlicans, and the innocent, real Americans of the hinterlands,  who were so foaming mouth red-mad about even mentioning Russia -- you could not speak of later day Fidel Cuba without people screaming Russian commie lover -- are now salivating to turn the US over to Putin.  Was it really have an African American as POTUS that did that?

Russian strategy of declaring 'partition' keeps reminding me of the political cartoons published as one after another. Austria, Russia and Prussia took one bite after another out of Poland, until, not long after, O look -- well we can't look at Poland, because the three had eaten it all up among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

For anyone not from the usa thats horrible, i didnt know about the two war doctrine, but maybe the rest of the world would be better with china as the dominant superpower. i dont say russia cuz it very much seems like they want a usa type of dominance.

Man, end this nonsensical China derail. China is a highly repressive authoritarian state, just like Russia, and Western countries had to spend time coaching their athletes not to say anything when they went to the Olympics because they couldn’t guarantee their safety if they did anything political. Believing China would be more benevolent than the US is absurd. Why do you think so many in Hong Kong are terrified of the thought of ending “one country, two systems?” Because the Chinese communist government is so loving and kind and openminded? Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Zorral said:

Ya.

I've been reading occasional pieces like that for a few years now too, including in the LRB and the Guardian.

What I can't wrap my brain around though, is how since sometime in the Obama era I began to perceive Russia as a real threat to the US and Europe, one that was actually waging war already against us, while the reichlicans, and the innocent, real Americans of the hinterlands,  who were so foaming mouth red-mad about even mentioning Russia -- you could not speak of later day Fidel Cuba without people screaming Russian commie lover -- are now salivating to turn the US over to Putin.  Was it really have an African American as POTUS that did that?

Russian strategy of declaring 'partition' keeps reminding me of the political cartoons published as one after another. Austria, Russia and Prussia took one bite after another out of Poland, until, not long after, O look -- well we can't look at Poland, because the three had eaten it all up among them.

It’s their  cult like worship of Trump and Trump’s boner for Putin. There is a transitive property at work here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Sorry, in the future I'll understand that when I link things you won't bother reading them. Thanks!

If you're asking me to comb through dozens of pages that directly and almost entirely refute your argument, yeah, you need to do a better job of it.  In spite of your dismissive and smartass attitude about it, it's really pathetic practice, at best.

6 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

The WaPo article indicated a number of people though Obama's policy was too passive. Brennan as well. Blinken said he disagreed with Obama, but at the end of the day it's his job to bring policy choices and then implement what was chosen - but it was clear he didn't think what they were doing was right. Obama has been criticized by a whole lot of people as being too soft on foreign policy, both now and at the time he did it. 

Again, I don't give a shit what Brennan said about it.  I'm frankly relieved Obama didn't take his advice.  As for Blinken, if he explicitly said he disagreed with Obama, and that quote is in the WaPo article, why is it so hard for you to just simply quote it?  

And no shit Obama has been criticized especially currently and even back then.  That doesn't mean that perspective is the correct one.  More importantly, your characterization of his administration as largely disagreeing with him - let alone thinking he was "too passive" and "feckless" - remains horseshit.

9 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I don't see how giving Ukraine more weapons and giving Russia more sanctions would have made things worse. Especially since that's exactly what we're doing right now. Or are you under the opinion that it's Biden's fault that Russia is invading now?

I don't know if you're willfully being obtuse or just amusingly dug in on your fallacious argument.  Arming Ukraine or imposing more punitive sanctions looks great now, sure.  They didn't to most reasonable analysts at the time - including most in the Obama administration.

12 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I'll again keep that under advisement regarding your attention span

Thanks!  I'll likewise keep in mind that whenever you link things purportedly supporting your argument you're full of shit.  Or just simply are really inept at linking things that support your argument.

14 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I didn't say that Blinken thought it was feckless. I did say that he thought it was weak.

Where did he say he thought it was weak?

15 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

I characterized it as feckless, because it was without feck. That's my view, though it appears shared by a lot of Republicans at the time and several democrats. And it's clear that Biden thought it was a mistake, and thought so at the time. 

Biden made myriad misjudgments when it comes to foreign policy throughout his career.  That he disagreed with Obama in that instance at that time hardly lionizes his wisdom.  More importantly, it doesn't in any way suggest he agrees with your assertion that Obama was feckless and too passive on Russia in 2014 nor foreign conflicts in general.

As for Republicans thinking Obama was too weak at the time - and subsequently implying we shoulda done what Congressional Republicans wanted to do - LOL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think China as the dominant global power would be a terrible fucking idea but I think there is also an almost-British tendency in America to not realise quite how much people in many parts of the world hate y'all as a power to assume that everyone would prefer the US to the prospect of China. I don't know if anyone here is falling prey to that or just setting aside that specific to argue what we think would be worse, but I feel like there might be some surprise here if it really came out how many parts of the world would feel themselves quite justified in setting aside US/Western domination and alliance for that of China, if they could. Notice that all your arguments currently are about what China are doing in their own territory. You can argue that they'd change their foreign policy if they got enough domination and may very well be correct about that- like I wouldn't trust them any more than I could throw them and China is fucking big so that's not far- but it's not hard to see why many people from many parts of the world would feel perfectly justified in taking their chances.  

Of course, I haven't done any actual statistical study of opinion on this so take it with a grain of salt but... 

I mean, I dunno where Conflicting Thought is from, but I was arguing just today with a Mexican fellow I know on twitter, from MMA spaces, who is generally a perfectly sensible dude in most cases but who made it clear that he would at least consider, if it came up, a nato-style arrangement between Mexico and Russia or China just to get some protection from US/'western' oppression.  

And he's from a part of the world where as far as I know China isn't making deliberate efforts to foster soft power via investment, building infrastructure etc etc. Nor one where his family and friends are being killed by American drones whistling bombs at them out of the clear blue sky. 



Basically what I'm trying to say by that ramble is we shouldn't dismiss the concept of people preferring China as ridiculous and stupid, because that won't persuade anyone. We might understand why that would be worse- and I have my own personal family history reasons for being, you know, very anti-communist- but just asking people who are currently fucked by the US to assume that China would be worse is... presumptuous, I think I'd put it? Like it's not gonna change anything us expressing it now, here, but if that's the attitude America and Americans (and Europe by extenstion) take in the coming years in general, to international relations and shit, I think that's dangerous. 

 


It's not particularly relevant to the Ukraine discussion mind. And Russia in the same position would be unquestionably worse for everyone in every measure- we already know full well that they'd be just as bad for foreign 'allies'/subjects as for minorities in their own lands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

China already has massive chunks of Africa, in a multitude of ways.  Also South America, in the same multitude of ways.  They've gotten massive hegemony over the resource rich regions which are essential to the manufacture of so much electronic and digital goods.

I for one am quite aware of how much the US is hated by so many -- not excluding the UK.  Anybody who has ever read the conversations in John le Carré novels among British military and intelligence agency types, or watched British television series set in WWII, should know this. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Again, I don't give a shit what Brennan said about it.  I'm frankly relieved Obama didn't take his advice.  As for Blinken, if he explicitly said he disagreed with Obama, and that quote is in the WaPo article, why is it so hard for you to just simply quote it?  

Blinken didn't in that article, he did in Frontline. And if you don't care about what Obama's policy advisor said when I said others disagreed, well, okay? But that doesn't make the point invalid. 

As to Blinken, here's one example:

Quote

 

… What made the most sense was not to get into a military tit-for-tat that spiraled up but rather to go at the soft underbelly, which was Russia’s economy. At the end of the day, that’s where President Obama came out. I think Europeans, including [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel, thought that that was the best direction to go in, but it was an ongoing argument within the administration.

Where were you?

Well, look, I don’t want to say. I think it’s not appropriate. All I can say is my job was to give the president my best advice. That’s what I did. But when he made a decision, we carried it out.

 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

And no shit Obama has been criticized especially currently and even back then.  That doesn't mean that perspective is the correct one.  More importantly, your characterization of his administration as largely disagreeing with him - let alone thinking he was "too passive" and "feckless" - remains horseshit. 

K. Can you give examples of where Obama was not particularly passive or feckless in his foreign policy? Hell, where he made any particularly good moves?

Because even in the case where he acted forcefully - things like the surge, or bombing Libya - that ended up fucking things up, big time. 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know if you're willfully being obtuse or just amusingly dug in on your fallacious argument.  Arming Ukraine or imposing more punitive sanctions looks great now, sure.  They didn't to most reasonable analysts at the time - including most in the Obama administration.

Per Blinken above, that was incorrect - and we know Biden at the time disagreed too. Whether it was 'most' in the Obama admin really isn't particularly relevant. If you like, I can say the Obama administration was feckless too. 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Where did he say he thought it was weak?

See above

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

Biden made myriad misjudgments when it comes to foreign policy throughout his career.  That he disagreed with Obama in that instance at that time hardly lionizes his wisdom.  More importantly, it doesn't in any way suggest he agrees with your assertion that Obama was feckless and too passive on Russia in 2014 nor foreign conflicts in general.

I'm not saying that Biden is particularly perfect, but I do think that Obama's general stance on foreign policy that wasn't Iraq or Afghanistan was 'eh'. And I do think that if the US and NATO and others had been harder on Russia in 2014, we wouldn't be here in 2022. 

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

As for Republicans thinking Obama was too weak at the time - and subsequently implying we shoulda done what Congressional Republicans wanted to do - LOL!

You were the one that argued that Obama would need to expend political capital to get more weapons sent to Ukraine. I don't think that that's accurate at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kalibuster said:

Blinken didn't in that article, he did in Frontline. And if you don't care about what Obama's policy advisor said when I said others disagreed, well, okay? But that doesn't make the point invalid. 

As to Blinken, here's one example:

Right, that's literally the quote from the Frontline article I alluded to a couple posts ago.  That you think that him intimating he disagreed with Obama on arming Ukraine - in an interview that involved him explaining and defending Obama's rationale the other 95% of the time - is evidence he agrees with your assertions is..very adorable.

5 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

Per Blinken above, that was incorrect - and we know Biden at the time disagreed too. Whether it was 'most' in the Obama admin really isn't particularly relevant. If you like, I can say the Obama administration was feckless too. 

Per Blinken above he agreed with the vast majority of the Obama administration's foreign policy conduct.  Which of course makes sense considering he was a key part of the Obama administration's foreign policy conduct.  Again, neither Biden nor Blinken have ever characterized Obama's foreign policy as "weak," "feckless," or "too passive."  Which means you have no evidence they agree with your assertions no matter how much you want to pretend they do.

8 minutes ago, Kalibuster said:

You were the one that argued that Obama would need to expend political capital to get more weapons sent to Ukraine. I don't think that that's accurate at all.

Well, no, I said Obama would have needed to expend political capital to impose more punitive sanctions.  But either way I'm not sure how that's really related to my point here that doing what congressional Republicans wanted to do at the time is laugh-inducing at best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...