American Politics Thread

[Volphied]

And Russia has every right to take it as provocation when NATO expands to press up against it borders, which frankly it is - this was nearly-unanimous opinion among political scientists in the early 90s. Are you suggesting that some nations have more of a right than other nations to act in their own national self-interests?

I mean, you're the one who's implying that Russia has more rights than Ukraine.

You're too naive. Ukraine has been part of russian sphere of influence since the end of the Soviet Union. If Ukraine joins NATO, then the Russian government will have to deal with american and european troops on its borders.

What do you mean by "european troops"?

 

[Dorothy]

I mean, you're the one who's implying that Russia has more rights than Ukraine.

No, I'm simply saying that NATO making decisions without considering Russia's interests is going to lead to trouble. When you run roughshod, you will break things. How about, instead of gobbling up countries on Russia's border and saber rattling, NATO commits to a moratorium on further expansion and engages in good-faith diplomacy with Russia, in the interest of peace?

 

[ShieldFan]

I mean, you're the one who's implying that Russia has more rights than Ukraine.

What do you mean by "european troops"?

Troops from other european countries (France, Poland, etc). Putin claims Western powers are using the NATO - that's true - to surround Russia, and he wants Nato to cease its military activities in Eastern Europe. He also has argued the US broke a guarantee it made in 1990 that Nato would not expand eastwards.

What if the mexican president lets Putin and/or Xi Jinping build a military base nearing Texas, California, New Mexico? Do you really think that Biden would just sit and watch thousands of chinese and russians troops there? Oh, Biden has not say in this matter, since it's up to mexicans to decide. We like it or not, Biden would do whatever it takes to stop something like that - and I'd completely agree with him.

 

[Volphied]

No, I'm simply saying that NATO making decisions without considering Russia's interests is going to lead to trouble. When you run roughshod, you will break things. How about, instead of gobbling up countries on Russia's border and saber rattling, NATO commits to a moratorium on further expansion and engages in good-faith diplomacy with Russia, in the interest of peace?

NATO didn't "gobble up" countries in Europe. Eastern European countries turned to NATO themselves. I reject your false interpretation of NATO forcing itself onto Eastern Europe, when the opposite happened. Russia should maybe ask why did all these Eastern European countries rushed towards the West, and away from Russia and their "sphere of influence". Maybe they were sick of being treated like shit by the Soviets.

Troops from other european countries (France, Poland, etc). Putin claims Western powers are using the NATO - that's true - to surround Russia, and he wants Nato to cease its military activities in Eastern Europe. He also has argued the US broke a guarantee it made in 1990 that Nato would not expand eastwards.

Why would NATO supposedly want to surround Russia? For fun? Also, do you realize that currently it's Russia that is surrounding Ukraine?

What if the mexican president lets Putin and/or Xi Jinping build a military base nearing Texas, California, New Mexico? Do you really think that Biden would just sit and watch thousands of chinese and russians troops there? Oh, Biden has not say in this matter, since it's up to mexicans to decide. We like it or not, Biden would do whatever it takes to stop something like that - and I'd completely agree with him.

Maybe if Mexico had to fend off Biden's attempt to overthrow the government, or after Biden sent troops to occupy and annex parts of Mexico while destabilizing the rest. Otherwise, there is no reason for Mexico to invite Russian troops, seeing as they are currently willing partners with the US. It's because the US is treating Mexico friendly that there is no reason for them to seek an alliance with Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is treating Ukraine with incredible malice. Is it really wonder that they'd be more inclined to seek US help?

Either way, your hypothetical scenario isn't the slam dunk you're expecting it to be. My original point is that countries should be allowed to choose independently who they want to ally with. Which is why I find it perplexing that the same people who denounce American imperialism are suddenly fine with Russian imperialism.

 

[zoroarctic]

And Russia has every right to take it as provocation when NATO expands to press up against it borders, which frankly it is - this was nearly-unanimous opinion among political scientists in the early 90s. Are you suggesting that some nations have more of a right than other nations to act in their own national self-interests?

Given that Russia started this whole mess by invading Ukraine in 2014 and continuing to occupy Ukrainian territory to this day, I can't take any of their complaints about "provocation" seriously. Again, if nearly all of Russia's sphere of influence prefers to ally with the West over them, it should prompt some serious self-reflection.

I find it perplexing that the same people who denounce American imperialism are suddenly fine with Russian imperialism.

One of the most startling things I've learned over the last few years is even Americans aren't immune to Soviet nostalgia.

 

[Volphied]

One of the most startling things I've learned over the last few years is even Americans aren't immune to Soviet nostalgia.

I think it's more like knee-jerk contrarianism. The debacle of the Iraq war made many people wary of US aggression. Unfortunately, this then caused many to automatically rush to cheer on anyone who opposes the US militarily, even if the guy opposing the US is a million times more imperialist than George Bush was.

 

[Dorothy]

I think it's more like knee-jerk contrarianism. The debacle of the Iraq war made many people wary of US aggression. Unfortunately, this then caused many to automatically rush to cheer on anyone who opposes the US militarily, even if the guy opposing the US is a million times more imperialist than George Bush was.

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I have not "cheered on" anyone, nor am I a "knee-jerk contrarian." I do not want war. I do not want innocent people to suffer and die for another country's pride and self-interest. I have specifically and repeatedly emphasized the need for diplomacy to resolve this dispute because again, I do not want war. That is my motivation.

Yes. I grew up in the era of Iraq. I saw what the United States did to Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. I do not want that fate to befall any other country ever again.

(The idea that Vladimir Putin is "a million times more imperialist" than George W. Bush is ludicrous. At most they are equivalent, and at least rhetorically Bush is magnitudes worse!)

Russia should not have invaded Ukraine. NATO, likewise, should not be recklessly pursuing a policy of Ukrainian accession when it has been made extremely clear that Russia considers this a red line.

Ukraine has a right to petition to join NATO, and NATO has just as much right to deny that petition because accepting it makes war more likely. Diplomacy requires give and take, and that means, yes, Russia should get a few things that it wants, including a moratorium on eastward expansion of NATO. Notice how Russia gets aggressive specifically as a result of NATO encroaching on its borders. It is not acting irrationally or diabolically, it is responding to threats to its interests. If NATO gave assurance that eastward expansion was no longer on the table, would Russia be as bellicose? I doubt it. This brinkmanship is needless, and acting like it's all on Russia is dishonest. We need to accept that NATO and the United States also bear responsibility before we can sit down and talk things out. That means Russia has to give some things up, and it means NATO has to give some things up, most likely its plans to expand eastward (which serve little purpose in the modern world other than to set up for war with Russia or China anyway).

 

[Volphied]

I do not want war. I do not want innocent people to suffer and die for another country's pride and self-interest.

Ukrainians are not dying for "another country's pride and self-interest". They're dying for their own country while facing an expansionist and imperialist Russia that denies their right for independence.

I have specifically and repeatedly emphasized the need for diplomacy to resolve this dispute because again, I do not want war.

Russia hasn't. Issuing unacceptable demands that boil down to NATO surrendering and Ukraine accepting a slave state status is only the kind of "diplomacy" an ex-KGB agent Putin can think of. We must not reward the threatening behavior of an armed gangster, because if we do, he'll just issue more demands in the future.

Ukraine has a right to petition to join NATO, and NATO has just as much right to deny that petition because accepting it makes war more likely.

This would come as news to the Baltic states, who avoided the fate of war-torn Ukraine and Georgia by rushing to join NATO. NATO is a defense alliance. It does not have the mechanism to wage offensive wars of aggression. In fact joining NATO is the only way you can avoid Russia sending troops to your country.

Notice how Russia gets aggressive specifically as a result of NATO encroaching on its borders.

Notice how Russia keeps away from the Baltic states since they entered NATO. Notice how Ukraine and Georgia are already in a war with Russia, who are occupying their lands.

Notice how even Putin was originally muted in his reaction to NATO "encroaching". To quote from the linked article:

In 2001, during a radio interview with National Public Radio, when asked if he opposed the admission of the three Baltic Republics into NATO Russian President Vladimir Putin responded that the issue could not be summed up in “a yes or a no.” He later added that “we cannot forbid people to make certain choices if they want to increase the security of their nations in a particular way.” In another appearance, Putin declared that Baltic membership was “no tragedy” for Russia. These statements clearly were not a ringing endorsement. However, by historical standards, this was the least public resistance put up by the head of the Russian state. Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to Moscow at a time of NATO enlargement, insists that he heard few complaints from the Russian side when the Baltics formally joined the alliance.

 

[ShieldFan]

NATO didn't "gobble up" countries in Europe. Eastern European countries turned to NATO themselves. I reject your false interpretation of NATO forcing itself onto Eastern Europe, when the opposite happened. Russia should maybe ask why did all these Eastern European countries rushed towards the West, and away from Russia and their "sphere of influence". Maybe they were sick of being treated like shit by the Soviets.

Why would NATO supposedly want to surround Russia? For fun? Also, do you realize that currently it's Russia that is surrounding Ukraine?

Maybe if Mexico had to fend off Biden's attempt to overthrow the government, or after Biden sent troops to occupy and annex parts of Mexico while destabilizing the rest. Otherwise, there is no reason for Mexico to invite Russian troops, seeing as they are currently willing partners with the US. It's because the US is treating Mexico friendly that there is no reason for them to seek an alliance with Russia. Russia, on the other hand, is treating Ukraine with incredible malice. Is it really wonder that they'd be more inclined to seek US help?

Either way, your hypothetical scenario isn't the slam dunk you're expecting it to be. My original point is that countries should be allowed to choose independently who they want to ally with. Which is why I find it perplexing that the same people who denounce American imperialism are suddenly fine with Russian imperialism.

I'm not "fine" with Russian imperialism. My point is, why do the US and NATO have more rights over Ukraine than Russia? You like it or not, countries, kingdoms, empires, etc, have always fought for influence. In my opinion, russians have the right to intervene in Ukraine to defend their own interests. If Ukraine joins NATO, then the Russians will have to deal with American, French, and British troops on their borders. Also Kiev is not far from Moscow, a missile launched from Kiev can hit Moscow in minutes. That's the kind of situation the russians just can't let happen.

My original point is that countries should be allowed to choose independently who they want to ally with.

This will never happen.

 

[Volphied]

I'm not "fine" with Russian imperialism. My point is, why do the US and NATO have more rights over Ukraine than Russia?

Alright, let me ask Darth Putin about who should have more rights over Ukraine, and why Ukraine definitely shouldn't have any right at all over themselves.

 

[zoroarctic]

For all this talk about NATO expansion and "encroachment", it's worth pointing out NATO's military personnel in Eastern Europe has decreased by more than half since 1991. The idea that NATO poses an existential threat to the country with the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal is...a stretch, to say the least.

 

[Volphied]

The idea that NATO poses an existential threat to the country with the world's largest nuclear weapons arsenal is...a stretch, to say the least.

There's a tweet for everything

 

[ShieldFan]

Smh

 

[Volphied]

Smh

 

[Dorothy]

People die in war, and it's awful, which is why we should oppose the United States' efforts to whip its citizens up into wanting war with Russia (over the wishes of the Ukrainian government, I might add).

(And if we're really going to compare dicks like this, more Russian and Russian-aligned individuals have died as a result of this war)

 

[CynthiaLover]

In recent news, after the Republican National Committee censured Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, those morons are now reframing the Jan 6 attack as "legitimate political discord". ...What? Considering this isn't the first time the RNC has reclassified the Jan 6 attack and riot as something completely ridiculous doesn't surprise me. And yet, at the same time, it baffles me that those goons are STILL trying to downplay a national crisis. How can they look at their own family members in the eyes after not only censuring Cheney and Kinzinger, but now calling the riot and attack on our country's capital "legitimate political discord"? I swear, it just goes to show that GOP has become so delusional about kissing Trump's arse that they're willing to downplay a national crisis that killed people and threatened countless others. It's amazing what that man has done to our once good country. I mean, we've had some bad presidents, yes, but none to the level Trump has been to this point.

On another note, Pence FINALLY woke up and rebuked Trump's claims that he could reverse the 2020 election results. Took him long enough. Hopefully this means more will follow in jumping ship and the noose around Trump's neck gets tighter. We can only hope.

 

[Volphied]

People die in war, and it's awful, which is why we should oppose the United States' efforts to whip its citizens up into wanting war with Russia (over the wishes of the Ukrainian government, I might add).

That's not what's happening. Nobody is "whipping" the US into war with Russia.

And if you truly cared about the wishes of the Ukraininan government, then you wouldn't be advocating for their surrender to Russia on the previous page. Because that's the last thing the Ukrainians want to do.

(And if we're really going to compare dicks like this, more Russian and Russian-aligned individuals have died as a result of this war)

And who's fault do you think that is? Can we blame the warmonger in the Kremlin?

 

[Dorothy]

And if you truly cared about the wishes of the Ukraininan government, then you wouldn't be advocating for their surrender to Russia on the previous page. Because that's the last thing the Ukrainians want to do.

I care a damn sight more than the United States government. And I never advocated for surrender, I advocated for diplomacy. Stop putting words in my mouth or there's no reason to continue speaking.

 

[Volphied]

I care a damn sight more than the United States government. And I never advocated for surrender, I advocated for diplomacy. Stop putting words in my mouth or there's no reason to continue speaking.

You advocated for this:

Guaranteeing that NATO will not seek the accession of Ukraine is absolutely a reasonable concession

Which is, according to the Ukrainian government, an absolute surrender of their right as a sovereign country to pursue alliances with whoever they want. So no, you obviously aren't on the same wavelength as the Ukrainian government.

Ukraine is a sovereign country and Russia has absolutely no right to decide who they should be friends with. They don't have veto over Ukrainian foreign relations, not since the Soviet Union fell and Ukraine gained independence.

Russia's demands are absolutely unacceptable. They were written specifically to be unacceptable. Putin isn't interested in diplomacy. Therefore, the correct way to respond to him is to stand with Ukraine and to call Putin's invasion threats as a bluff. That is the wish of the Ukrainian government.

 

[Dorothy]

Which is, according to the Ukrainian government, an absolute surrender of their sovereign right to pursue alliances with whoever they want. So please stop saying that you care about the wishes of the Ukrainian government, when it's absolutely obvious that the US and other western allies care about them more than you.

"Pursue alliances" is not the same thing as "have their applications to join those alliances be accepted."

Anyway, have fun arguing with the made-up evil tankie version of me that exists in your head, it's clear you do not intend to engage in good faith.