The View: Arrest Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard for being Russian propagandists

[TheTexan]

(under the excuse of "liberating" it)

Why do you automatically assume it is an "excuse" anyway?

I get it - politicians are almost universally evil. But not always.

Why is it so hard to imagine that Putin may be doing this with at least some amount of good intentions? Donbass isn't some country on the other side of the world. It's right next door, with a shared culture and shared history. And its a genuine humanitarian tragedy that's been going on for the past 8 years, with civilian women and children being intentionally murdered by literal Nazi's. They asked for his help and he gave it to them.

If that's not a noble cause to intervene in, then goddamn, what is ?

 

[TheTexan]

If you read Putin's transcripts over the past few weeks (available at kremlin.ru) you can count how many times NATO is brought up.

Zero.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is circular logic. "He invaded because of NATO so that others would think that he invaded because of NATO". The west definitely has that impression and that is certainly the perception... and if that was Putin's real intention he is playing 47-d chess because - again - NATO has nothing to do with his stated intentions.

He invaded Ukraine-at-large to secure Donbass in Russia's interests while making it abundantly clear to those who don't have their heads up their asses just how far he is willing to go to secure Russia's sphere of influence (which is inherently and inescapably counter to NATO's). There is nothing "circular" in any of this (the self-serving "impressions" and "perceptions" of any western pundits to the contrary notwithstanding).

As far as Putin's "stated intentions", only the most abject of fools will take the statements of politicians at face value (and the fact that Putin's actions are not contrary to his stated intentions can in no way be taken to mean that his actions are not also motivated by other unstated intentions that are almost certainly of more importance to him than his stated ones).

And Putin himself is an abject fool if he is not motivated in some significant degree to counter the potential for further NATO expansion ... (hint: Putin is not an abject fool ...)

There's no way to have a "double buffer". If anything, Donbass is currently holding all of Ukraine back from joining NATO currently. If/When Donbass is generally recognized as its own independent region (or moves to Russia), there is nothing holding back Western Ukraine from joining NATO. The only thing that would hold Western Ukraine back (aside from other factors already in play) is if Putin installs a puppet in Kiev - which he has shown so far no interest in doing.

Of course there is something that could hold back western Ukraine from joining NATO - namely, the amply demonstrated fact that Putin's Russia is able and willing to invade Ukraine. Whether the West will choose to heed that very clear warning is another matter, of course, but to suggest that it would be a wholly ineffective factor of no significance is absurd.

As for Putin having so far shown no interest in installing a puppet in Kiev, see my remarks above concerning unstated intentions. Given the opportunity to do so - which he may well end up having - why wouldn't he? He'd be a fool not to - and whatever else he may be, Putin is no fool. An explicit guarantee of a non-NATO Ukraine may be the price the West has to pay to keep Kiev off of Russia's puppet strings. That Putin might not want Ukraine doesn't mean he won't use it as a bargaining chip to secure what he does want. A "double buffer" of a non-NATO Ukraine and a Donbass puppet is very much a real possibility, and one that Putin (from Russia's perspective) would be incredibly unwise not to seek and secure, if he is able to do so.

 

[TheTexan]

He invaded Ukraine-at-large to secure Donbass in Russia's interests while making it abundantly clear to those who don't have their heads up their asses just how far he is willing to go to secure Russia's sphere of influence (which is inherently and inescapably counter to NATO's). There is nothing "circular" in any of this (the self-serving "impressions" and "perceptions" of any western pundits to the contrary notwithstanding).

Your choice of tone reveals your emotions on the matter. "just how far he is willing to go to secure Russia's sphere of influence".

Just "how far" is that? Physical force? If you accept that people have a right to self determination, and you accept that Donbass's self determination is aligned to Russia, then why should Putin not use physical force to defend his people and his allies? This is self defense 101.

This isn't some "extreme measure" (my words, but in line with your tone) that he has taken. It is a perfectly reasonably, justifiable action, that is only considered unreasonable, by unreasonable people.

As far as Putin's "stated intentions", only the most abject of fools will take the statements of politicians at face value (and the fact that Putin's actions are not contrary to his stated intentions can in no way be taken to mean that his actions are not also motivated by other unstated intentions that are almost certainly of more importance to him than his stated ones).

And Putin himself is an abject fool if he is not motivated in some significant degree to counter the potential for further NATO expansion ... (hint: Putin is not an abject fool ...)



Of course there is something that could hold back western Ukraine from joining NATO - namely, the amply demonstrated fact that Putin's Russia is able and willing to invade Ukraine. Whether the West will choose to heed that very clear warning is another matter, of course, but to suggest that it would be a wholly ineffective factor of no significance is absurd.

As for Putin having so far shown no interest in installing a puppet in Kiev, see my remarks above concerning unstated intentions. Given the opportunity to do so - which he may well end up having - why wouldn't he? He'd be a fool not to - and whatever else he may be, Putin is no fool. An explicit guarantee of a non-NATO Ukraine may be the price the West has to pay to keep Kiev off of Russia's puppet strings. That Putin might not want Ukraine doesn't mean he won't use it as a bargaining chip to secure what he does want. A "double buffer" of a non-NATO Ukraine and a Donbass puppet is very much a real possibility, and one that Putin (from Russia's perspective) would be incredibly unwise not to seek and secure, if he is able to do so.

As your post is largely reiterating your previously stated positions, I will refrain from further response.

For a logical person, in this case you are not being very logical. I urge you to take a moment to honestly reassess your position.

 

[TheTexan]

Offer Putin a peace deal that involves Ukraine recognizing Donbass' independence, and my guess is he would take it.

Offer Putin a deal that involves Ukraine never being part of NATO, and Donbass remaining part of Ukraine, and my guess is he would not take it.

It is no coincidence, that deals that Zelensky has been promoting, have been of the 2nd kind.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why do you automatically assume it is an "excuse" anyway?

I get it - politicians are almost universally evil. But not always.

I called it an excuse because that is what it is.

Whether it is a genuine and earnest excuse is a separate matter.

Why is it so hard to imagine that Putin may be doing this with at least some amount of good intentions? Donbass isn't some country on the other side of the world. It's right next door, with a shared culture and shared history. And its a genuine humanitarian tragedy that's been going on for the past 8 years, with civilian women and children being intentionally murdered by literal Nazi's. They asked for his help and he gave it to them.

If that's not a noble cause to intervene in, then goddamn, what is ?

What I find so hard to imagine is how any sensible person can think that Putin is doing this with no intention or motivation other than or apart from what you have described.

If you read Putin's transcripts over the past few weeks (available at kremlin.ru) you can count how many times NATO is brought up.

Zero.

The notion that countering NATO influence doesn't figure significantly in Putin's calculations and objectives merely because he hasn't explicitly and publicly said so is grotesquely fatuous.

 

[TheTexan]

What I find so hard to imagine is how any sensible person can think that Putin is doing this with no intention or motivation other than or apart from what you have described.

There are 3 possible motivations:
1) Humanitarian
2) Expanding sphere of influence
3) NATO

I rule out NATO mostly because his actions are very likely to result in the opposite effect that he would desire. Unless he takes over Ukraine entirely, there will be more support for NATO than ever before in Ukraine. For two reasons, 1) Donbass will no longer be part of Ukraine, and 2) It will be "blowback" for his actions

After ruling out NATO, it can only be #1 or #2. I don't know which one and don't care. As Donbass has made their self determination clear, both #1 and #2 are noble causes.

Countries throughout history have invaded surrounding regions for reason #2 (Expand sphere of influence). Why is that not enough in this case? Why does it have to be about NATO? Acquiring Donbass is reward enough.

The notion that countering NATO influence doesn't figure significantly in Putin's calculations and objectives merely because he hasn't explicitly and publicly said so is grotesquely fatuous.

"merely because". No, not merely. Again, his actions are more likely to result in Ukraine being part of NATO than if he had done nothing. I know you disagree with that and it's fine, but it's a "grotesque" mischaracterization of my position, to say that I believe Putin "merely" because he has or hasnt said so.

See post #45. It sums up well why I think this is not about NATO.

 

[TheTexan]

Another reason I do not believe it is about NATO:

All of western media is telling me that it is.

 

[TheTexan]

Another reason I do not believe it is about NATO:

(Western) Ukraine becoming part of NATO is inevitable and Putin knows this and I do not think he is as threatened by it as Western media would have you think.

 

[TheTexan]

I called it an excuse because that is what it is.

My point was, you don't know that, you have no way of knowing that, and you say it with certainty anyway.

Again, it speaks to your emotion on the matter.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Your choice of tone reveals your emotions on the matter. "just how far he is willing to go to secure Russia's sphere of influence".

Just "how far" is that? Physical force? If you accept that people have a right to self determination, and you accept that Donbass's self determination is aligned to Russia, then why should Putin not use physical force to defend his people and his allies? This is self defense 101.

This isn't some "extreme measure" (my words, but in line with your tone) that he has taken. It is a perfectly reasonably, justifiable action, that is only considered unreasonable, by unreasonable people.

As your post is largely reiterating your previously stated positions, I will refrain from further response.

For a logical person, in this case you are not being very logical. I urge you to take a moment to honestly reassess your position.

What emotions are you referring to? I have expressed neither support for nor condemnation of anything Putin has done or is doing. I have not offered any normative judgments on the matter at all, one way or the other (let alone emotionally-driven ones). I have nowhere and in no way said, argued, or even implied that "Putin [should] not use physical force to defend his people and his allies". Nor have I characterized any of his actions as being in any way "unreasonable". (On the contrary, I have described what I think are the carefully considered reasons behind his actions.)

You seem to be upset that I do not regard those reasons as being solely altruistic, or that I do not think Putin is acting merely as some kind of savior on behalf of the sovereignty of the people of Donbass. I have no idea whether or to what degree any of those things figure into Putin's motivations. Neither do you. But at least my analysis, unlike your own, does not depend on Putin's noblesse oblige. All the things I have said can be true just as easily if Putin is the righteous champion you want him to be as they can if he is not.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Offer Putin a peace deal that involves Ukraine recognizing Donbass' independence, and my guess is he would take it.

Offer Putin a deal that involves Ukraine never being part of NATO, and Donbass remaining part of Ukraine, and my guess is he would not take it.

It is no coincidence, that deals that Zelensky has been promoting, have been of the 2nd kind.

At the moment, Putin does not seem to have any compelling reason to accept either of those deals.

Obviously, he would would prefer a deal that both (1) grants Donbass independence from Ukraine, and (2) guarantees that Ukraine will not be part of NATO.

And if the invasion of Ukraine goes sufficiently well for Russia, then he may be able to get both of those things. He'd be a fool not to try.

 

[Occam's Banana]

My point was, you don't know that, you have no way of knowing that, and you say it with certainty anyway.

Again, it speaks to your emotion on the matter.

You are projecting. I meant "excuse" as in "publicly-stated reason".

It is precisely because there is no way of knowing that I used that particular word.

 

[Occam's Banana]

There are 3 possible motivations:
1) Humanitarian
2) Expanding sphere of influence
3) NATO

I rule out NATO [...]

After ruling out NATO, it can only be #1 or #2. [...]

As I previously noted, Russia's sphere of influence is inherently and inescapably counter to NATO's.

That is why NATO exists in the first place (in counter to Russia's sphere). There is no #2 without #3, and vice versa.

Putin would be a fool to rule out NATO. Putin is not a fool. Therefore ...

 

[TheTexan]

What emotions are you referring to?

Your tone, certainty, word choice, all reveal your emotions. As does your constant mischaracterization of my position. My position is not hard to understand yet you constantly mischaracterize or draw up strawmen to attack. As I know for a fact that you are capable of honest debate, your absence of it in this discussion I am generally going to ascribe to emotion.

I have no idea whether or to what degree any of those things figure into Putin's motivations. Neither do you.

This is the first logical thing you have said so far, yet it is in contradiction to the certainty to which you ascribe his motivations to NATO.

But at least my analysis, unlike your own, does not depend on Putin's noblesse oblige. All the things I have said can be true just as easily if Putin is the righteous champion you want him to be as they can if he is not.

Unlike my own? My analysis does not depend on Putin's "nobless oblige" either. Nowhere have I said, implied, or given reason to believe that I am assuming Putin's motivations are pure and noble. The closest to it is that I have said that it's merely in the realm of possibility that his motivations are noble. But my position is more accurately to be understood as saying "I don't care if his motivations are pure as long as his stated intent is to help Donbass and his actions are aligned to that statement".

 

[TheTexan]

You are projecting. I meant "excuse" as in "publicly-stated reason".

It is precisely because there is no way of knowing that I used that particular word.

If you meant "publicly-stated reason" the precise way to say that is "publicly-stated reason".

The word "excuse" carries with it many negative connotations and is likely the least precise word you could have chosen, but you chose it because of those negative connotations.

 

[TheTexan]

At the moment, Putin does not seem to have any compelling reason to accept either of those deals.

Obviously, he would would prefer a deal that both (1) grants Donbass independence from Ukraine, and (2) guarantees that Ukraine will not be part of NATO.

And if the invasion of Ukraine goes sufficiently well for Russia, then he may be able to get both of those things. He'd be a fool not to try.

Why would you think that Putin does not have a compelling reason to accept deal #1 ?

There is no reason to think he would not accept it.

 

[TheTexan]

As I previously noted, Russia's sphere of influence is inherently and inescapably counter to NATO's.

That is why NATO exists in the first place (in counter to Russia's sphere). There is no #2 without #3, and vice versa.

Putin would be a fool to rule out NATO. Putin is not a fool. Therefore ...

Got it, everything is about NATO, because everything is about NATO, therefore everything is about NATO.

Your story checks out

 

[69360]

If you read Putin's transcripts over the past few weeks (available at kremlin.ru) you can count how many times NATO is brought up.

Zero.

Wrong. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/67843

 

[sparebulb]

Forgotten in all of this is the very small armor incursion to insert a sabotage team into Crimea on the day before the big invasion.

A Russian condition is Ukraine's recognition of Crimea as being part of Russia.

This will prove to be the most bitter pill for Zelensky and his handlers.