The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] 240 Days Till Brexit

1457910100

Posts

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Who in their right mind is going to think Theresa May is able to control some international conspiracy that involves deceiving multiple governments and chemical weapons experts when she can’t even control her own fucking cabinet.

    To be fair, doing international conspiracy shit in warzones is probably way easier than controlling a Tory cabinet.
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Who in their right mind is going to think Theresa May is able to control some international conspiracy that involves deceiving multiple governments and chemical weapons experts when she can’t even control her own fucking cabinet.

    A bunch of Syrians and Iranians, probably. I'm pretty sure that's where this bit of conspiracy if aimed, rather than being just trolling the UK.

    These points would be valid if they didn’t involve fooling every intelligence agent in the region, every humanitarian organization in the region, every chemical watchdog trying to glean every scrap of evidence they possibly can and every single country that listens to any of the above.

  • DeadWarDeadWar Registered User regular
    I see a lot of 'Iraq was bad, therefore Syria will be bad' arguments.

    There is proof by the UN that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons - https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/8bztma/russian_military_says_that_an_alleged_chemical/dxazqrp/

    http://undocs.org/A/68/663

    Now no-one can say that Syria does not have WMD's, if they say they don't then they are liars. What is more is that they have used them.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    This is being discussed in the US foreign policy thread, but since the UK and France are involved it belongs here too.

    Missiles were launched tonight.

  • ShadowenShadowen Snores in the morning LoserdomRegistered User regular
    "At least France is involved?" he said with a kind of hopeless attempt at optimism.

    They're certainly not great but Macron is at least a competent douchebag.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Well I'm not going to weep any tears for fucking Assad, though I can't stand the thought of how many innocent people will die because of this.

    At the very least it should hopefully force the UK and US to accept refugees from Syria, and to help them to evacuate safely to the US and Europe, and stop the disgusting recent trend of hoping somebody else will deal with it and pretending not to notice when it's places like fucking Lybia drowning them off their coast and enslaving the survivors.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    Julius wrote: »
    Who in their right mind is going to think Theresa May is able to control some international conspiracy that involves deceiving multiple governments and chemical weapons experts when she can’t even control her own fucking cabinet.

    To be fair, doing international conspiracy shit in warzones is probably way easier than controlling a Tory cabinet.
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Who in their right mind is going to think Theresa May is able to control some international conspiracy that involves deceiving multiple governments and chemical weapons experts when she can’t even control her own fucking cabinet.

    A bunch of Syrians and Iranians, probably. I'm pretty sure that's where this bit of conspiracy if aimed, rather than being just trolling the UK.

    These points would be valid if they didn’t involve fooling every intelligence agent in the region, every humanitarian organization in the region, every chemical watchdog trying to glean every scrap of evidence they possibly can and every single country that listens to any of the above.

    It's more than that, the UK is the "mastermind" at the centre of a ton of conspiracy theories in the middle east. This is not fooling agencies, it's mass media control/trying to get a home ground advantage that'll tilt the scales when it comes to putting boots on the ground. You don't even need everyone in on the conspiracy theory, just enough that an aura of distrust settles around the other guys to make lives a little difficult and the odd truly crazy lone wolf.

    "No smoke without a fire" kind of common knowledge, whilst you're firing an artillery company's worth of smoke grenades into the general area. Trying to turn any moderate that might want to work with the western powers into the republican version of Hillary Clinton.

    [edit]God damn yes we should be matching this with a massive refugee program - that might be how you counter this kind of narrative whilst also mitigating the damage we're causing. Plus woo to not being complete and utter monsters to people in need! Not like we're not short a few doctors, nurses or even fruit pickers recently...

    Tastyfish on
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Are they okay with that?

    Corbyn is bad at criticising countries like Russia for their imperialistic violence, but I don't know that he approves at all. I imagine he surely doesn't?

    From a New Statesman article about STW.
    It defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”. When Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, it was quick to blame NATO and the European Union for “surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West”.

    Here's the official STW statement on the Crimea. It totally opposes all military action but also says it's not Russia's fault in any way. STW also said it wasn't going to demonstrate against Russian military activity because it would add to anti-Russian feeling.

    Corbyn used to be the Chair of STW.

    Pointing out that something is a reaction to the ambition of the US to exercise global hegemony is hardly a defense. It is at least far more accurate than saying Russia is picking a fight while the West is sitting there all innocent. Bush suggested offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine, both members of CIS. NATO said yeah let's do that. USA-Georgia relations are basically the US arming the shit out of them.

    Unsurprisingly, Russia considers this kind of shit a threat.

    Their reaction to the Crimean invasion basically nullifies any attempt to read their reaction to the Georgian situation as nuanced. It's just straight "it's the West's fault".

    Ukraine's Russian puppet government going down basically scared the shit out of Russia and so they invaded and annexed another country. You can't blame that on NATO cause they could have just not invaded.

    That Russian puppet government was also a fair democratically elected government. While I certainly think that moving towards authoritarian shit is bad, I also believe that just fucking with other countries because you don't like what they do is bad.

    The point is not Russia=Good/USA=Bad. The point is that these kinds of geopolitical conflict produce wars.

  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Shadowen wrote: »
    "At least France is involved?" he said with a kind of hopeless attempt at optimism.

    They're certainly not great but Macron is at least a competent douchebag.

    I wonder how competent he is in foreign affairs. He doesn't have much experience there.

    I mean not Trump level but...

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Cross-posting Narwhal from the US Foreign Policy thread.
    BeNarwhal wrote: »
    Statement from Russian Ambassador to the USA Anatoly Antonov


    That's me at maximum clench for the night...

  • JazzJazz Registered User regular
    That's okay, I didn't need sleep tonight or anything...

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Are they okay with that?

    Corbyn is bad at criticising countries like Russia for their imperialistic violence, but I don't know that he approves at all. I imagine he surely doesn't?

    From a New Statesman article about STW.
    It defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”. When Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, it was quick to blame NATO and the European Union for “surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West”.

    Here's the official STW statement on the Crimea. It totally opposes all military action but also says it's not Russia's fault in any way. STW also said it wasn't going to demonstrate against Russian military activity because it would add to anti-Russian feeling.

    Corbyn used to be the Chair of STW.

    Pointing out that something is a reaction to the ambition of the US to exercise global hegemony is hardly a defense. It is at least far more accurate than saying Russia is picking a fight while the West is sitting there all innocent. Bush suggested offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine, both members of CIS. NATO said yeah let's do that. USA-Georgia relations are basically the US arming the shit out of them.

    Unsurprisingly, Russia considers this kind of shit a threat.

    Their reaction to the Crimean invasion basically nullifies any attempt to read their reaction to the Georgian situation as nuanced. It's just straight "it's the West's fault".

    Ukraine's Russian puppet government going down basically scared the shit out of Russia and so they invaded and annexed another country. You can't blame that on NATO cause they could have just not invaded.

    That Russian puppet government was also a fair democratically elected government. While I certainly think that moving towards authoritarian shit is bad, I also believe that just fucking with other countries because you don't like what they do is bad.

    The point is not Russia=Good/USA=Bad. The point is that these kinds of geopolitical conflict produce wars.

    But what you are saying is complete bullshit dude. Yeah, it was a democratically elected government but it was also toppled by internal unrest. None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia and it's not up to Russia to decide they are mad about the issue and invade and annex territory. Especially because that doesn't even make sense as a response to a government getting toppled since annexing Crimea doesn't solve the issue of a democratically elected government falling.

    The point is absolutely that "US == Bad, Russia doesn't like the US, therefore Russia == notBad". Because otherwise why the fuck are you blaming anyone but Russia for something Russia did? Literally the whole point of their statement there is whataboutism.

    None of this should actually be shocking though if you've spent any time around left-wing politics. Their take on this issue is not abnormal. It's the same reason you see like Jill Stein with connections to RT.

  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    Tastyfish on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    And if Russia was planning a nuclear strike, the embassy in downtown DC wouldn't be wasting time that could be spent on crying and panicking or fleeing in terror given DC would clearly be a primary target

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

  • smofsmof [Growling historic on the fury road] Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    Seems to be going around lately.

  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Russia is not a limp force

    They have achieved targeted strategic victories in Syria and Crimea in the last few years very effectively.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Russia is not weak, but they are not a super power.
    Biggest issue is that the one super power left has decided it wants to be friends with Russia, and rest are either too weak to act against them, don't give a shit, or are too dependent on Russian energy exports.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    No, they’re not a superpower, but they’re not exactly clinging uselessly to their faded glory either. They’re using what they have, and they seem to be doing a better job of it than virtually every country they’re up against.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    They have managed to capitalize on the rise of the right wing xenophobia, as well as nobody really having an option to hit them too hard thanks to being a major nuclear power, and important energy exporter.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    It is worth remembering that the usual outcome of a right-wing, militarized Europe is the deaths of millions of Russians. That’s true even when the Russians are buddy-buddy with them.

    Russia is dangerous as fuck. That doesn’t mean it isn’t weak, ailing, and the most likely eventual victim of whatever world order that they are trying to create.

    Phillishere on
  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    It is worth remembering that the usual outcome of a right-wing, militarized Europe is the deaths of millions of Russians. That’s true even when the Russians are buddy-buddy with them.

    Russia is dangerous as fuck. That doesn’t mean it isn’t weak, ailing, and the most likely eventual victim of whatever world order that they are trying to create.
    They are a weak and ailing, BEAR.
    Worst case scenario, they take rest of us with them.
    Best case, we're still going to bleed before this is over.

  • TryCatcherTryCatcher Registered User regular
    From the 3 countries involved on the attack, the more likely to get a response from Putin is the UK, given that the May administration is weak and ineffectual and Putin has proven that he can mess with them without issue.

    So there's that.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    On the upside, it's spring and Russia's influence vanes as people need less heating.
    On the downside, there's going to be new winter.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    shryke on
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Are they okay with that?

    Corbyn is bad at criticising countries like Russia for their imperialistic violence, but I don't know that he approves at all. I imagine he surely doesn't?

    From a New Statesman article about STW.
    It defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”. When Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, it was quick to blame NATO and the European Union for “surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West”.

    Here's the official STW statement on the Crimea. It totally opposes all military action but also says it's not Russia's fault in any way. STW also said it wasn't going to demonstrate against Russian military activity because it would add to anti-Russian feeling.

    Corbyn used to be the Chair of STW.

    Pointing out that something is a reaction to the ambition of the US to exercise global hegemony is hardly a defense. It is at least far more accurate than saying Russia is picking a fight while the West is sitting there all innocent. Bush suggested offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine, both members of CIS. NATO said yeah let's do that. USA-Georgia relations are basically the US arming the shit out of them.

    Unsurprisingly, Russia considers this kind of shit a threat.

    Their reaction to the Crimean invasion basically nullifies any attempt to read their reaction to the Georgian situation as nuanced. It's just straight "it's the West's fault".

    Ukraine's Russian puppet government going down basically scared the shit out of Russia and so they invaded and annexed another country. You can't blame that on NATO cause they could have just not invaded.

    That Russian puppet government was also a fair democratically elected government. While I certainly think that moving towards authoritarian shit is bad, I also believe that just fucking with other countries because you don't like what they do is bad.

    The point is not Russia=Good/USA=Bad. The point is that these kinds of geopolitical conflict produce wars.

    But what you are saying is complete bullshit dude. Yeah, it was a democratically elected government but it was also toppled by internal unrest. None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia and it's not up to Russia to decide they are mad about the issue and invade and annex territory. Especially because that doesn't even make sense as a response to a government getting toppled since annexing Crimea doesn't solve the issue of a democratically elected government falling.

    "None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia" is by far the most ignorant thing to say. It has everything to do with them, it is literally the reason for the conflict. It started over the issue of choosing between US/EU or Russia.
    To Russia it looked like a pro-Russian government being replaced by an US-backed one. Rather than do nothing they decided to annex Crimea, their main strategic interest. That's a perfectly logical response if you're Russia. Yeah they could have just not invaded, but they didn't. They didn't for all these reasons.

    That you want the STW to just go "ooh no guys stop fighting. fighting is bad!" to any armed conflict is hardly a reason to do so. Analysis on that level is neither interesting nor useful.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    That's a perfectly logical response if you're Russia.
    Something can be both logical from one perspective and a terrible thing to do that should be condemned. If anything, being something that makes sense for them to do makes it all the more important to condemn it because they are more likely to keep doing that sort of terrible thing compared to some random nonsensical action.

    The USA is a great example. It did a ton of horrific crimes that were logical from its perspective. Imagine one of these people essentially defending American involvement in the Vietnam War by saying it was logical from the perspective of America and so the fault doesn't really lie with the USA and instead lies with the communists.

    Couscous on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Are they okay with that?

    Corbyn is bad at criticising countries like Russia for their imperialistic violence, but I don't know that he approves at all. I imagine he surely doesn't?

    From a New Statesman article about STW.
    It defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”. When Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, it was quick to blame NATO and the European Union for “surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West”.

    Here's the official STW statement on the Crimea. It totally opposes all military action but also says it's not Russia's fault in any way. STW also said it wasn't going to demonstrate against Russian military activity because it would add to anti-Russian feeling.

    Corbyn used to be the Chair of STW.

    Pointing out that something is a reaction to the ambition of the US to exercise global hegemony is hardly a defense. It is at least far more accurate than saying Russia is picking a fight while the West is sitting there all innocent. Bush suggested offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine, both members of CIS. NATO said yeah let's do that. USA-Georgia relations are basically the US arming the shit out of them.

    Unsurprisingly, Russia considers this kind of shit a threat.

    Their reaction to the Crimean invasion basically nullifies any attempt to read their reaction to the Georgian situation as nuanced. It's just straight "it's the West's fault".

    Ukraine's Russian puppet government going down basically scared the shit out of Russia and so they invaded and annexed another country. You can't blame that on NATO cause they could have just not invaded.

    That Russian puppet government was also a fair democratically elected government. While I certainly think that moving towards authoritarian shit is bad, I also believe that just fucking with other countries because you don't like what they do is bad.

    The point is not Russia=Good/USA=Bad. The point is that these kinds of geopolitical conflict produce wars.

    But what you are saying is complete bullshit dude. Yeah, it was a democratically elected government but it was also toppled by internal unrest. None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia and it's not up to Russia to decide they are mad about the issue and invade and annex territory. Especially because that doesn't even make sense as a response to a government getting toppled since annexing Crimea doesn't solve the issue of a democratically elected government falling.

    "None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia" is by far the most ignorant thing to say. It has everything to do with them, it is literally the reason for the conflict. It started over the issue of choosing between US/EU or Russia.
    To Russia it looked like a pro-Russian government being replaced by an US-backed one. Rather than do nothing they decided to annex Crimea, their main strategic interest. That's a perfectly logical response if you're Russia. Yeah they could have just not invaded, but they didn't. They didn't for all these reasons.

    That you want the STW to just go "ooh no guys stop fighting. fighting is bad!" to any armed conflict is hardly a reason to do so. Analysis on that level is neither interesting nor useful.

    It is perfectly logical if your Russia. Russia wanted Crimea, so they took it. That doesn't mean it's defensible on any level. And yet that's what STW is trying to do by going on with their whataboutism.

    Your continued attempts to defend this shit is ridiculous. One can understand why Russia annexed the territory of a neighbouring country without actually defending it in any way or trying to pretend like it was justified or someone else's fault. But that's not what STW did because that's not their goal.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Bogart wrote: »
    Solar wrote: »
    Are they okay with that?

    Corbyn is bad at criticising countries like Russia for their imperialistic violence, but I don't know that he approves at all. I imagine he surely doesn't?

    From a New Statesman article about STW.
    It defended Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 as a reaction to “the ambition of the USA to exercise global hegemony”. When Russia annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, it was quick to blame NATO and the European Union for “surrounding Russia with military bases and puppet regimes sympathetic to the West”.

    Here's the official STW statement on the Crimea. It totally opposes all military action but also says it's not Russia's fault in any way. STW also said it wasn't going to demonstrate against Russian military activity because it would add to anti-Russian feeling.

    Corbyn used to be the Chair of STW.

    Pointing out that something is a reaction to the ambition of the US to exercise global hegemony is hardly a defense. It is at least far more accurate than saying Russia is picking a fight while the West is sitting there all innocent. Bush suggested offering a Membership Action Plan to Georgia and Ukraine, both members of CIS. NATO said yeah let's do that. USA-Georgia relations are basically the US arming the shit out of them.

    Unsurprisingly, Russia considers this kind of shit a threat.

    Their reaction to the Crimean invasion basically nullifies any attempt to read their reaction to the Georgian situation as nuanced. It's just straight "it's the West's fault".

    Ukraine's Russian puppet government going down basically scared the shit out of Russia and so they invaded and annexed another country. You can't blame that on NATO cause they could have just not invaded.

    That Russian puppet government was also a fair democratically elected government. While I certainly think that moving towards authoritarian shit is bad, I also believe that just fucking with other countries because you don't like what they do is bad.

    The point is not Russia=Good/USA=Bad. The point is that these kinds of geopolitical conflict produce wars.

    But what you are saying is complete bullshit dude. Yeah, it was a democratically elected government but it was also toppled by internal unrest. None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia and it's not up to Russia to decide they are mad about the issue and invade and annex territory. Especially because that doesn't even make sense as a response to a government getting toppled since annexing Crimea doesn't solve the issue of a democratically elected government falling.

    "None of this shit has anything to do with the US or Russia" is by far the most ignorant thing to say. It has everything to do with them, it is literally the reason for the conflict. It started over the issue of choosing between US/EU or Russia.
    To Russia it looked like a pro-Russian government being replaced by an US-backed one. Rather than do nothing they decided to annex Crimea, their main strategic interest. That's a perfectly logical response if you're Russia. Yeah they could have just not invaded, but they didn't. They didn't for all these reasons.

    That you want the STW to just go "ooh no guys stop fighting. fighting is bad!" to any armed conflict is hardly a reason to do so. Analysis on that level is neither interesting nor useful.

    Europe has had a steady move toward democracy and competent government for decades that was spreading to Eastern Europe due to the opening of the West after the Cold War ended. Russia was on that train to for several years, including in Putin's early years.

    The trouble started when Putin's reforms started to fail, and he had to resort to increasing levels of propaganda, paeans to empire, and reliance on corruption to get things done. Suddenly, all the similar progress across Eastern Europe turned into signs of Western imperialism. Before that, Russia wasn't in love with the NATO expansion, but they were also talking openly about a day when Russia might join NATO. Like, there were serious debates in the late 90s and early 00s about the point of a NATO that has Russia as a member.

    So let's not pretend that the Russian story that they were being encircled by foes and had to be strong has any validity. They were not only welcomed to the club, but every European politicians was salivating at the prospect of Russian cash flowing into their economy. Russia could be one of the pillars of the EU had that been their wish.

    Putin just chose hardline authoritarianism because he's a brutish thug who couldn't hack it at effective governance. The US, EU, and NATO are not saints, but this conflict has everything to do with internal Russian politics and economic stagnation and collapse. The dictator chose belligerence, because you need an external enemy to make a police state work.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    That's a perfectly logical response if you're Russia.
    Something can be both logical from one perspective and a terrible thing to do that should be condemned. If anything, being something that makes sense for them to do makes it all the more important to condemn it because they are more likely to keep doing that sort of terrible thing compared to some random nonsensical action.

    The USA is a great example. It did a ton of horrific crimes that were logical from its perspective. Imagine one of these people essentially defending American involvement in the Vietnam War by saying it was logical from the perspective of America.

    It is logical to displace and genocide the indigenous population in order to take their land and populate it with your own people. Makes perfect sense.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    edited April 2018
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    But is that because Russia is strong and effective or because the US, UK, and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership? A lot of bad actors are rising in the power vacuum, but I'd still bet that - barring a nuclear war - in 20 years we'll be talking about China, the EU, and the U.S. in terms of power dynamics and Russia in terms of "those poor people, what can we do about them?"

    Phillishere on
  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    But is that because Russia is strong and effective or because the US, UK, and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership? A lot of bad actors are rising in the power vacuum, but I'd still bet that - barring a nuclear war - in 20 years we'll be talking about China, the EU, and the U.S. in terms of power dynamics and Russia in terms of "those poor people, what can we do about them?"

    The US, UK and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership in large part because Russia have been so effective.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    No, it's not. The Russians have been killing people on UK soil for ages now. With funky poisons and everything.

    And Russia is absolutely a state that is decidedly not comfortable with their diminished status in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the subsequent ruin of their country that followed that in the 90s. They have been, especially under Putin, trying to regain their power and status at the international level. It's why you see them so vigorously defending the last scraps of their perceived sphere of influence. They are trying to reinforce the idea that they are still not to be fucked with but they are reduced to doing so for basically the last vestiges of their hegemony and resorting to asymmetrical warfare tactics because they lack other options.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    No, it's not. The Russians have been killing people on UK soil for ages now. With funky poisons and everything.

    And Russia is absolutely a state that is decidedly not comfortable with their diminished status in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the subsequent ruin of their country that followed that in the 90s. They have been, especially under Putin, trying to regain their power and status at the international level. It's why you see them so vigorously defending the last scraps of their perceived sphere of influence. They are trying to reinforce the idea that they are still not to be fucked with but they are reduced to doing so for basically the last vestiges of their hegemony and resorting to asymmetrical warfare tactics because they lack other options.

    Yeah they’ve used funky weapons of all kinds, but they’ve never poisoned a bunch of other random people in the process, leaving one who had nothing whatsoever to do with them in serious condition in hospital. They poisoned Alexander Litvinenko with pulonium, but that didn’t send the people around him into hospital. Can you imagine what would have happened if it had?

    Although honestly I think we’re bumping heads on this for no reason. You thought I was saying Russia was a superpower, and I was focused on you bolding the part of my post about us having to stop pretending Russia can’t hurt us and saying it’s wasnt true.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    No, it's not. The Russians have been killing people on UK soil for ages now. With funky poisons and everything.

    And Russia is absolutely a state that is decidedly not comfortable with their diminished status in the wake of the end of the Cold War and the subsequent ruin of their country that followed that in the 90s. They have been, especially under Putin, trying to regain their power and status at the international level. It's why you see them so vigorously defending the last scraps of their perceived sphere of influence. They are trying to reinforce the idea that they are still not to be fucked with but they are reduced to doing so for basically the last vestiges of their hegemony and resorting to asymmetrical warfare tactics because they lack other options.

    Yeah they’ve used funky weapons of all kinds, but they’ve never poisoned a bunch of other random people in the process, leaving one who had nothing whatsoever to do with them in serious condition in hospital. They poisoned Alexander Litvinenko with pulonium, but that didn’t send the people around him into hospital. Can you imagine what would have happened if it had?

    Although honestly I think we’re bumping heads on this for no reason. You thought I was saying Russia was a superpower, and I was focused on you bolding the part of my post about us having to stop pretending Russia can’t hurt us and saying it’s wasnt true.

    I said at the start that "they can't hurt us" is the only part of your initial statement that wasn't true. Russia can absolutely fuck with us but that doesn't change how much their country and it's economy is declining or how much their influence has been curtailed. In something perhaps familiar to the UK they are a nation trying to exert the kind of influence they did at the height of their power.

    The amount of people they hit with this latest attack can in many ways be viewed as a lack of power more then anything. It's sloppy. The only reason they didn't do something like his before is that they didn't want to. So either they couldn't do it more cleanly or they just wanted to send a message.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    But is that because Russia is strong and effective or because the US, UK, and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership? A lot of bad actors are rising in the power vacuum, but I'd still bet that - barring a nuclear war - in 20 years we'll be talking about China, the EU, and the U.S. in terms of power dynamics and Russia in terms of "those poor people, what can we do about them?"

    The US, UK and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership in large part because Russia have been so effective.
    They've exploited pre existing issues.
    Which has been very effective, but would not have been possible if not for pre existing conditions, and many willing stooges in positions of power and influence.

  • Desktop HippieDesktop Hippie Registered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    But is that because Russia is strong and effective or because the US, UK, and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership? A lot of bad actors are rising in the power vacuum, but I'd still bet that - barring a nuclear war - in 20 years we'll be talking about China, the EU, and the U.S. in terms of power dynamics and Russia in terms of "those poor people, what can we do about them?"

    The US, UK and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership in large part because Russia have been so effective.
    They've exploited pre existing issues.
    Which has been very effective, but would not have been possible if not for pre existing conditions, and many willing stooges in positions of power and influence.

    None of this is changing the fact that we keep dismissing the state of a country that has handed us our collective arses not just once, but several times over the last few years. And is still getting away with it.

  • NyysjanNyysjan FinlandRegistered User regular
    Nyysjan wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    It's the US Russian embassy, and clearly trolling. Why would you make a fuss about a "pre-designed" scenario unless you were wanting to pretend that maybe it could have been nukes when there's no way you'd use that language in a situation where nukes might be used? Why not react and say you were doing so because of the specific provocation if you were going to do say rather than this crazy "was this your card?" bullshit

    Because they said they could shoot down the missiles and they couldn't...so wait to claim credit for some local US chaos from the Cohen bust and pretend that they tipped them off once something seems to be happening.

    Or they just shot missiles into somewhere in Lebanon for no reason other than generally fuck things over.

    We should probably stop pretending that the country that has, over the last few years, invaded the Crimea, stoked fascist violence in Europe, successfully swayed the Brexit vote, successfully swayed the US election, launched a chemical attack on the UK and has, thus far, more or less gotten away with every single one of those things, is a limp has-been nation clinging to its long-forgotten superpower heyday that can’t hurt us.

    Sure, but only the last part of that is not true.

    Like, Russia is absolutely a limp has-been failing state desperate to regain the prestige and power of being a superpower. They just also have some strong effective tactics they can use against democracies and in certain conflicts (see - Georgia or Crimea or Syria) have their back up against the wall enough that they are willing to push harder then other countries are willing to push back.

    See this is exactly what I’m talking about. Once you’ve used a nerve agent on NATO soil and spent weeks taunting the country in question, you’re pretty much off the limp list. We have to stop kidding ourselves and dismissing Russia as powerless. They’re clearly not.

    No you don't. That's not a move that requires being a super-power. It just requires having nerve gas and nuclear weapons. North Korea could pull this off and we know that because they did the exact same kind of thing.

    Your response here is exactly what I was talking about: you are confusing "can cause damage or trouble" with all the other things you mentioned like "limp has-been nation" and "clinging to it's long-forgotten superpower heyday". These are not the same thing.

    I don't know why you ignore the part of my post where I say that they can still do plenty of damage in their current state but it's ridiculous to not note Russia as a state in serious decline on multiple fronts.

    I haven’t said they’re superpower. I’ve been pretty clear about them not being a superpower. But they’re not clinging uselessly to their faded glory. They’re using what they have, and they’re using it very, very well.

    They got away with releasing a nerve agent in the UK, poisoning UK civilians along with the target of the attack.

    That’s not causing damage or trouble. That’s unprecedented.

    But is that because Russia is strong and effective or because the US, UK, and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership? A lot of bad actors are rising in the power vacuum, but I'd still bet that - barring a nuclear war - in 20 years we'll be talking about China, the EU, and the U.S. in terms of power dynamics and Russia in terms of "those poor people, what can we do about them?"

    The US, UK and Europe are in the midst of a historic crisis of leadership in large part because Russia have been so effective.
    They've exploited pre existing issues.
    Which has been very effective, but would not have been possible if not for pre existing conditions, and many willing stooges in positions of power and influence.

    None of this is changing the fact that we keep dismissing the state of a country that has handed us our collective arses not just once, but several times over the last few years. And is still getting away with it.
    And they keep getting away because of their nuclear arsenal, our pre existing issues with xenophobia, willing stooges in positions of power, and our continued need for energy.
    Yes, we should not dismiss them, but we should also not forget that their success comes not from their strength, but our own weaknessess.

This discussion has been closed.