Maidan

[Gorbles]

Ooh, personal whattaboutism. I must really be getting on your nerves.

Since you claim you read those few posts I made there, you must know that I don't support either side there and consider the whole conflict and related discussion a dumpster fire that I don't want to touch even wirelessly.

And yet, if you said you don't support either side in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you'd be called pro-Russian, or ideologically-blind, etc.

(in my opinion, "both sides are bad" fails to adequately put the burden on the colonising power, and the same as with Russia, that's giving Israel a pass)

Quote the whole conversation, or none of it. I don't mind calling people out for what they are once they show their true colours, and that's exactly what happened here.

I'll quote what I want, it's not like the context makes it any better. All someone has to do is click the quote to go to the post - I'm a stickler for preserving the post chain.

Like I said, you can justify it however you want. Everyone does, which would be okay if you didn't get outraged on the receiving end. Is it too much to ask for some consistency? Or is it okay so long as you personally approve of the target?

 

[r16]

ugh , this is a spillover from some thread where the team officially holds court and it came over here because ?

 

[r16]

like where the latest thing claims Yeltsin to be a sensible moderate ? Oh , right ! Not really palatable on a day Bidon offers not to run , to people who know what he did in the "summer" , if Trump is not allowed to run , you know , by not exactly Americans and so on ...

 

[Estebonrober]

Come on. Play along. I wanted to drive home my point about how absurd it is to worry about Ukrainian nazis and lack of elections in a war torn country while at the same time supporting a country (?) which elected literal terrorists and fascists 18 years ago and after that had no elections anymore.

Oh, I'm sorry I cannot be your easy target punching bag for your fake talking points. As if an election that took place 18 years ago justifies bombing the children living there today. This is disgusting behavior, and you should have more respect for yourself and your humanity.

 

[Estebonrober]

ugh , this is a spillover from some thread where the team officially holds court and it came over here because ?

like where the latest thing claims Yeltsin to be a sensible moderate ? Oh , right ! Not really palatable on a day Bidon offers not to run , to people who know what he did in the "summer" , if Trump is not allowed to run , you know , by not exactly Americans and so on ...

You are going to have to clear this up for me to be able to respond to it.

 

[keli]

Oh, I'm sorry I cannot be your easy target punching bag for your fake talking points. As if an election that took place 18 years ago justifies bombing the children living there today. This is disgusting behavior, and you should have more respect for yourself and your humanity.

Where did I say that it justifies bombing?
On the other hand you did call out Ukraine about this when its children are being bombarded constantly.

 

[keli]

I love this thread btw, it was a great idea.

 

[Estebonrober]

Are you blind or what ?

In your chart it very explicitly shows the US giving most of the military support by a large margin, a margin that is expanding going into 2024. Now if the EU actually thought this was an existential threat it would be mobilizing its economy not lifting its expenditures by basis points of GDP at most. Are you blind or what? Or is the idea that Russia is an existential threat to the EU jsut insanely fudging laughable. Russia is a bloody run-down gas station with a massive weapons depot behind it and an insane old krank running it.

 

[Sarin]

And yet, if you said you don't support either side in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you'd be called pro-Russian, or ideologically-blind, etc.

(in my opinion, "both sides are bad" fails to adequately put the burden on the colonising power, and the same as with Russia, that's giving Israel a pass)

I'll quote what I want, it's not like the context makes it any better. All someone has to do is click the quote to go to the post - I'm a stickler for preserving the post chain.

Like I said, you can justify it however you want. Everyone does, which would be okay if you didn't get outraged on the receiving end. Is it too much to ask for some consistency? Or is it okay so long as you personally approve of the target?

When did I ever call anyone ideologically blind? At worst, I called people blind to consequences of rising Russian imperialism. That's not the same thing. Nevertheless, if you read the whole conversation, you'll see that I gave him the benefit of doubt. I understand why some people might choose to stay away from it, although due to the nuclear possibilities, I call it short-sighted. But as the dishonesty and propaganda piled up, I called it for what it is.

I'm a stickler for presenting whole truth at once, not pieces.

 

[Estebonrober]

To say that absolute aid, rather than proportion of their capabilities, is a proof of will and intent, is a propaganda feat worthy of Solovyov.

And so is claiming that not starting a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia, the very thing that we're trying to avoid due to high risk of nuclear engagement, is a proof that we're not taking it seriously.


For these reasons, I'm considering you about as honest as "nuke them all" mouthpiece Solovyov. End of discussion.

Good for you, I've turned your own charts against you guys and so far the response has been to whine about me not being easy enough to destroy and walking away. Congratulations! Oh, and ad hominems. Can't forget the ad hominem!

 

[Estebonrober]

Where did I say that it justifies bombing?
On the other hand you did call out Ukraine about this when its children are being bombarded constantly.

Pretty sure I've been on the same page since the war started. Would have to dig back into the original threads to see my exact takes, but I bet they were on the humanitarian this is a disaster side.

 

[Gedemon]

And yet, if you said you don't support either side in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, you'd be called pro-Russian, or ideologically-blind, etc.

IMO it's different in a sense that in one case you'll have to use false equivalences to put both sides culpabilities at the same level, in the other you can blame both sides actions equally.

 

[Estebonrober]

I love this thread btw, it was a great idea.

It has been cathartic. Watching you all stumble over yourselves to try to hammer me into dust has been amusing.

 

[r16]

ever noticed there has been a constant optimism in some place with no black clouds ? My stance was explained to the locals in the big city near my home for a while with my Russian Army Major mistress ; not that ı have one . Because of my unhappiness with where CFC has been to , even if ı have no clear explanation to offer why that ever concerns me , this thread would have been like easier to read with less pages , like because it HAS become a thing that adds to ever present irritation with the US , the West , the whole lot . You know , without a justification for the present invasion .

 

[Gorbles]

When did I ever call anyone ideologically blind?

I said, if you said both sides were bad, you'd be called such. I didn't claim you were the one saying it.

IMO it's different in a sense that in one case you'll have to use false equivalences to put both sides culpabilities at the same level, in the other you can blame both sides actions equally.

In my opinion, neither are equal. To render the situation in the Middle East "equal" requires some significant logical leaps, or outright false equivalences, to borrow your phrase.

 

[Sarin]

I said, if you said both sides were bad, you'd be called such. I didn't claim you were the one saying it.

And you base that statement on what? Come on, show us. I don't recall anyone ever being called that.

 

[Kyriakos]

Meanwhile, the accusation of being blind has been thrown about a number of times in this thread.

There was a reason why both US and Russia signed to respect the security of the Ukraine, and also a reason why Nato had agreed to not expand to the border of Russia. Curiously some think one failed promise isn't related to the other failed promise, as in one is your right while the other just some meaningless end-of-cold-war thing no one should care about.

 

[Gorbles]

And you base that statement on what? Come on, show us. I don't recall anyone ever being called that.

I mean, just read. If you don't want to, why should I do the legwork?

You already misread a very clear statement, and I clarified plainly, without hassle. But you need to put work in too, yeah?

 

[REDY]

Ukraine isn't angelic purity, and yes, Russia invaded, not the other way around, and still issues like minorities and human rights don't matter if personal ideas about risks to "the west" (which imo is not rational; specific countries are at some risk of being attacked by Russia, and those are literally a tiny minority in "the west" if you even place them in "the west") take charge. Which they do.
Without Maidan, we wouldn't have Crimea being part of Russia (not that I was ever in favor of Russia annexing Crimea; I posted that many times back when it was news, not just now). Of course Ukraine wouldn't be allowed to go to the west without leaving behind the regions that Russia cares about, and those are the strategic coastline.

Erm, experts were warning about Russia taking Crimea long time before Maidan or even Yanukovich (second term). In 2009 it was taken as most probable variant if will Putin will stay in the power. I guess western media were not interested much then and are not interested about Kremlin desires now. Its really frustrating.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's not like the popular discussion ever goes beyond what facilitates either personal peeves and antipathies and of course caters to specific economic interests (such as arms companies).