Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[TheReckoning]

Anyone wishing for a war of annihilation for the sake of “winning” is a psychopath, regardless of which side they want destroyed.

Being contrarian all of the time is the laziest intellectual position imaginable. Just stop.

We have people like Forumlurker who literally want to send Russia back to the Stone Age and kill whoever they view as an enemy. Opposing this isn’t being a “contrarian,” it’s standing up for what’s right. What Russia is pulling right now is evil without a doubt, and Ukraine should have international support, but fantasizes about destruction aren’t right.

Forumlurker is a lunatic who speaks only for himself.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re being ridiculous. Wanting Russia to lose an unjustified war of aggression is not wrong. Winning a war requires defeating the opposing forces. Wanting that is not wrong. There is nothing wrong at all with hoping that that occurs in this case. Does that mean that we should hope for war crimes or “annihilating Russia”? No. But unless you were specifically talking about Forumlurker nobody was saying that.

The problem with getting militaristic every single time a bad guy steps out of line is that violence would become the modus operandi of literally all world powers. Perpetual war helps no one and we have to be very careful how we approach these issues.

The more countries that jump into a conflict, the worse it becomes.

[TheReckoning]

Anyone wishing for a war of annihilation for the sake of “winning” is a psychopath, regardless of which side they want destroyed.

Being contrarian all of the time is the laziest intellectual position imaginable. Just stop.

We have people like Forumlurker who literally want to send Russia back to the Stone Age and kill whoever they view as an enemy. Opposing this isn’t being a “contrarian,” it’s standing up for what’s right. What Russia is pulling right now is evil without a doubt, and Ukraine should have international support, but fantasizes about destruction aren’t right.

Forumlurker is a lunatic who speaks only for himself.

That doesn’t change the fact that you’re being ridiculous. Wanting Russia to lose an unjustified war of aggression is not wrong. Winning a war requires defeating the opposing forces. Wanting that is not wrong. There is nothing wrong at all with hoping that that occurs in this case. Does that mean that we should hope for war crimes or “annihilating Russia”? No. But unless you were specifically talking about Forumlurker nobody was saying that.

The problem with getting militaristic every single time a bad guy steps out of line is that violence would become the modus operandi of literally all world powers. Perpetual war helps no one and we have to be very careful how we approach these issues.

The more countries that jump into a conflict, the worse it becomes.

That is, of course, if China sees this and sees weakness as a green light to go into Taiwan.

Correct. I’m not saying the world just stand by and do nothing. Just that if you try to kill everyone who steps out of line… pretty soon, their won’t even be anyone to step out of line.

[TheReckoning]

We ought to get BigSerg in here to see another perspective.

[TheReckoning]

Russia is NOT the same threat as Nazi Germany or even the USSR, and people desperate for action need to stop pretending otherwise.

[TheReckoning]

Russia is NOT the same threat as Nazi Germany or even the USSR, and people desperate for action need to stop pretending otherwise.

It's true that there is a certain type of bored, NEET westerner who is hoping for action for action's own sake simply in order to bring excitement to their otherwise dreary life.

However, it's unquestionable that Putin's playbook has shifted from his old approach of nibbling around the edges of his neighbors, to outright conquest. It's very likely that his 2 years of COVID isolation either made him insane, obsessed with his place in the history books, or both.

Conquest was status quo for millennia, so people need to stop acting like breaking a relatively recent norm is definitely the end of mankind, or even a major event in the grand scheme of things.

[TheReckoning]

Russia is NOT the same threat as Nazi Germany or even the USSR, and people desperate for action need to stop pretending otherwise.

It's true that there is a certain type of bored, NEET westerner who is hoping for action for action's own sake simply in order to bring excitement to their otherwise dreary life.

However, it's unquestionable that Putin's playbook has shifted from his old approach of nibbling around the edges of his neighbors, to outright conquest. It's very likely that his 2 years of COVID isolation either made him insane, obsessed with his place in the history books, or both.

Conquest was status quo for millennia, so people need to stop acting like breaking a relatively recent norm is definitely the end of mankind, or even a major event in the grand scheme of things.

Give me a break. There are a lot of things that were the status quo for millennia that we don't do anymore, that would be ""major events"" if they resumed.

For millennia all over the world slavery was accepted and normal. Legal slavery was only fully stamped out in this past century. It is a recent norm. Per your logic, people shouldn't act like it were a big deal if the United States brought back slavery, and our doing so would not be a "major event".

For millennia in parts of the world, homosexuality was punishable by death. Per your idiotic logic, people would have no right to act like it was a big deal or a major event if the UK reimplemented the death penalty for homosexuality tomorrow.

For millennia there was no such thing as electoral democracy in any recognizable sense. Per your logic, it wouldn't be a big deal or a major event if Joe Biden crowned himself Emperor of the United States tomorrow.

For millennia nobody saw a problem with massacring the inhabitants of captured cities and raping and ransoming the survivors. It was the status quo. I suppose if Russia starts doing that too, you'll be the first one to let us know that it isn't exceptional historically and that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Russia invading Ukraine definitely is a “big deal.” Just no where near as consequential as WW2 or the Cold War, and people need to stop pretending otherwise and blowing things out of proportion.

[TheReckoning]

Russia is NOT the same threat as Nazi Germany or even the USSR, and people desperate for action need to stop pretending otherwise.

It's true that there is a certain type of bored, NEET westerner who is hoping for action for action's own sake simply in order to bring excitement to their otherwise dreary life.

However, it's unquestionable that Putin's playbook has shifted from his old approach of nibbling around the edges of his neighbors, to outright conquest. It's very likely that his 2 years of COVID isolation either made him insane, obsessed with his place in the history books, or both.

Conquest was status quo for millennia, so people need to stop acting like breaking a relatively recent norm is definitely the end of mankind, or even a major event in the grand scheme of things.

Give me a break. There are a lot of things that were the status quo for millennia that we don't do anymore, that would be ""major events"" if they resumed.

For millennia all over the world slavery was accepted and normal. Legal slavery was only fully stamped out in this past century. It is a recent norm. Per your logic, people shouldn't act like it were a big deal if the United States brought back slavery, and our doing so would not be a "major event".

For millennia in parts of the world, homosexuality was punishable by death. Per your idiotic logic, people would have no right to act like it was a big deal or a major event if the UK reimplemented the death penalty for homosexuality tomorrow.

For millennia there was no such thing as electoral democracy in any recognizable sense. Per your logic, it wouldn't be a big deal or a major event if Joe Biden crowned himself Emperor of the United States tomorrow.

For millennia nobody saw a problem with massacring the inhabitants of captured cities and raping and ransoming the survivors. It was the status quo. I suppose if Russia starts doing that too, you'll be the first one to let us know that it isn't exceptional historically and that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

Russia invading Ukraine definitely is a “big deal.” Just no where near as consequential as WW2 or the Cold War, and people need to stop pretending otherwise and blowing things out of proportion.

Cool, not what you said though.

Also nobody is saying that this is as big a deal as WWII. If that was the point you were trying to make, you were arguing against no-one.

Forumlurker et al. are claiming this could be not just the start of WW3, but literally a cataclysmic tier event. WW3 is trending on many social media sites, and people are starting to believe the hype.

[TheReckoning]

Also, it's clear that China got it right when it decided to ring-fence its internet, bar Western internet and social media companies that wouldn't meet its requirements, which turned out to be all of them, and develop domestic alternatives. Facebook and Twitter are turning out to be huge national security nightmares for Russia as they are clearly intervening on behalf of the Ukrainians and banning them now could cause backlash as there may not be an alternative (maybe Telegram?) and Russians are used to using them. China would not face this issue at all. Yes it's annoying to use the internet in China particularly to browse foreign websites but national security is more important than my convenience.

You are a pathetic excuse of a human who is desirous of oppression, we know this.

Preferring authoritarianism to libertarianism is a valid position to take.

[TheReckoning]

Also, it's clear that China got it right when it decided to ring-fence its internet, bar Western internet and social media companies that wouldn't meet its requirements, which turned out to be all of them, and develop domestic alternatives. Facebook and Twitter are turning out to be huge national security nightmares for Russia as they are clearly intervening on behalf of the Ukrainians and banning them now could cause backlash as there may not be an alternative (maybe Telegram?) and Russians are used to using them. China would not face this issue at all. Yes it's annoying to use the internet in China particularly to browse foreign websites but national security is more important than my convenience.

You are a pathetic excuse of a human who is desirous of oppression, we know this.

Preferring authoritarianism to libertarianism is a valid position to take.

No, actually.

Not everyone has the same values as you, Dule.

[TheReckoning]

Also, it's clear that China got it right when it decided to ring-fence its internet, bar Western internet and social media companies that wouldn't meet its requirements, which turned out to be all of them, and develop domestic alternatives. Facebook and Twitter are turning out to be huge national security nightmares for Russia as they are clearly intervening on behalf of the Ukrainians and banning them now could cause backlash as there may not be an alternative (maybe Telegram?) and Russians are used to using them. China would not face this issue at all. Yes it's annoying to use the internet in China particularly to browse foreign websites but national security is more important than my convenience.

You are a pathetic excuse of a human who is desirous of oppression, we know this.

Preferring authoritarianism to libertarianism is a valid position to take.

No, actually.

Not everyone has the same values as you, Dule.

Exactly, which is why I don't have the right to impose my values on them. Hence why authoritarianism is inherently wrong.

Except some think imposing values on others isn’t inherently wrong. Which is a valid position to take.

[TheReckoning]

Also, it's clear that China got it right when it decided to ring-fence its internet, bar Western internet and social media companies that wouldn't meet its requirements, which turned out to be all of them, and develop domestic alternatives. Facebook and Twitter are turning out to be huge national security nightmares for Russia as they are clearly intervening on behalf of the Ukrainians and banning them now could cause backlash as there may not be an alternative (maybe Telegram?) and Russians are used to using them. China would not face this issue at all. Yes it's annoying to use the internet in China particularly to browse foreign websites but national security is more important than my convenience.

You are a pathetic excuse of a human who is desirous of oppression, we know this.

Preferring authoritarianism to libertarianism is a valid position to take.

No, actually.

Not everyone has the same values as you, Dule.

Exactly, which is why I don't have the right to impose my values on them. Hence why authoritarianism is inherently wrong.

Except some think imposing values on others isn’t inherently wrong. Which is a valid position to take.

Hypocrisy is never valid, and authoritarianism is inherently hypocritical.

It’s not, really. One might say it’s not really self-aware. But there’s nothing inherently hypocritical about being authoritarian. And either way, an allegation of hypocrisy is an attack on behavior, not on idealogy.

[TheReckoning]

Does anyone here actually realize how uniquely evil Hitler/Nazis were? Not every bad person, or every person who starts a war, is the same level as Hitler. Not even close.

[TheReckoning]

Supporting a right to conquest is a valid position to take, no one should be banned for it.

[TheReckoning]

Supporting a right to conquest is a valid position to take, no one should be banned for it.

Wrong

This thread isn’t as interesting with BigSerg/compucomp muted from it, although I guess that’s what happens when you ban anyone with a different perceptive. People wanted to ban SirWoodbury even though he’s literally pro-Ukraine for reporting any news that wasn’t optimistic for Ukraine.

[TheReckoning]

Supporting a right to conquest genocide is a valid position to take, no one should be banned for it.

Literally you. Disgusting.

The slippery slope of fascism.

Supporting genocide is definitely grounds to be banned. But thinking countries have the right to invade other countries really shouldn’t be.

[TheReckoning]

A new Yale study finds that the Russian economy is in shambles as a result of sanctions, despite Kremlin propaganda and some Western news articles that only base on selective facts.

https://twitter.com/jerryjamesstone/status/1553311082768281600

That’s not a good thing. Sanctions only hurt civilians, not governments. Theres a reason why every country with an economy in “shambles” still has all the higher-ups in government living in palaces. The Russian people don’t deserve to be hurt, but that’s the only thing that comes out of sanctions.

[TheReckoning]

It is ironic that given how many Russo-Persian wars took place between the 1650s and 1820s now Iran emerge as a key ally for Russia.

Fascist Russia and Theocratic Fascist Iran agree on one thing: the western world order of democracy and human rights, not to mention US power, must be overturned.

Neither of those two regimes are even remotely close to fascism.

[TheReckoning]

It is ironic that given how many Russo-Persian wars took place between the 1650s and 1820s now Iran emerge as a key ally for Russia.

Fascist Russia and Theocratic Fascist Iran agree on one thing: the western world order of democracy and human rights, not to mention US power, must be overturned.

Neither of those two regimes are even remotely close to fascism.

"Not even remotely close".

Imagine unironically believing this.

Fascism has only existed since 1915. What features do Iran or Russia have that could not be ascribed to pre-1915 polities?

[TheReckoning]

It is ironic that given how many Russo-Persian wars took place between the 1650s and 1820s now Iran emerge as a key ally for Russia.

Fascist Russia and Theocratic Fascist Iran agree on one thing: the western world order of democracy and human rights, not to mention US power, must be overturned.

Neither of those two regimes are even remotely close to fascism.

"Not even remotely close".

Imagine unironically believing this.

The poster in question also thinks Pinochet wasn't right wing.

Oh FFs, that’s not what I said at all. I said that just as Pinochet was right wing in part because of his privatization schemes, the Ayatollah’s are left wing because of their nationalization schemes. How is that argument hard to follow?

[TheReckoning]

There's no better telltale sign of a pseudointellectual than someone who insists on a hyperspecific definition of fascism that happens to exclude any current political movement or regime with obvious and glaring similarities to historical fascism.

There’s nothing “hyperspecific” about using the definition that fascists themselves used when they developed their ideology. Otherwise, I could call the push for universal healthcare in the United States communism, because it bears some resemblance to something Vladimir Lenin happened to say once.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

[TheReckoning]

Ronald Reagan as a zombie resurrected would literally likely be breaking out of the coffin, dig his way up with skeletal fingers, levitate 360 degrees in the air, and effectively haunt the sad spectacle to which the modern day Republican Party has become when it comes to Russia.

Ronald Reagan is a serious contender for the most pro-Russia president this country has ever had. Pro-Russian government? That probably goes to FDR. But pro-Russia? Ronald Reagan.

What are you even talking about???

Pro-Russia President versus Pro-Russian Gvt???

Also, please explain exactly in precise detail while you consider Ronald Reagan to be the most "Pro Russian President this country has ever had".

Confused in Oregon who grew up under Mr. Reagans Presidency???

Get it that FDR and Churchill had to do a deal with Stalin to eliminate the scourge of Nazism and Fascism in Europe, but really WTF are you even talking about?

Assuming you are texting on phone and hence not able to explain your positions with greater detail, but just like Ann Landers gotta follow up with a "Dear Reader" style question to explain your completely bizarre and generally unintelligible post?

Curious in Oregon and likely much of Atlas wants further explanation for your points stated.

No president’s actions have brought more benefit to the country of Russia than Reagan’s did, by taking down the Soviet Union.

No president has strengthened the Russian government’s power as much as FDR did, because FDR personally liked Stalin and reflected that liking in his actions towards the Soviet Union.

[TheReckoning]

Reagan did not take down the Soviet Union.

FDR did not "strengthen the Russian government's power" in any exceptional way.

You don't understand history, stop talking about it and read a book.

Reagan didn’t take down the Soviet Union single handedly, but he was, in my opinion, the single most important individual that led to Soviet Union and it’s influence over the world ending. A lot of people would say it was actually Gorbachev, but actually, Gorbachev had no realistic choice but to call the project quits. So yeah, he did more to help the country of Russia than any other president. I challenge you to submit an alternative to him and FDR.

[TheReckoning]

"To the German Commander:

NUTS!

The American Commander"

- General Anthony McAuliffe, in response to a German request to surrender, 22 December 1944

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1604286515563175936?s=20&t=pTfKLNm...

Russia is a Orthodox fascist theocracy, similar to Iranian Islamic fascist theocracy. Putin's Russia has a mix of the worst characteristics of the the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire.

You clearly have no idea what either of those two ideologies are, lmao.

[TheReckoning]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/13/us-ukraine-war-critical-moment/

"U.S. Warns Ukraine It Faces a Pivotal Moment in War"

The USA, anonymously, now wants to put some caps on the scale of help despite its claims of "As long as it takes"

"We will continue to try to impress upon them that we can't do anything and everything forever," said one senior administration official, referring to Ukraine's leaders. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive diplomatic matters, added that it was the administration's "very strong view" that it will be hard to keep getting the same level of security and economic assistance from Congress.
"'As long as it takes' pertains to the amount of conflict," the official added. "It doesn't pertain to the amount of assistance."

It’s not about putting caps on it’s about concern that the Putin simps in congress are going to cut funding so they’re saying Ukraine should maximize what it’s getting now

Thinking the USA should not get tied up in perpetual wars =/ simping for Putin.