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

[TheTexan]

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

We all know the Feb 24 address mentioned NATO. The point was, everything since then, there are zero (or extremely limited) references to NATO.

 

[TheTexan]

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.

Unwillingness to recognize Crimea and Donbass is why the NATO narrative is so played up. Yes, NATO is part of it, it would be "grotesquely fatuous" to deny that. But by playing up the NATO narrative, the west is allowed to ignore entirely the issues of Donbass and Crimea.

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

Yes. I am certain - absolutely certain - that Putin's actions are to some significant degree predicated upon the securement and expansion of Russia's sphere of influence (and the necessarily concomitant prevention of the expansion of NATO's sphere of influence). I am unable to take seriously any contention that this is not the case. This does not require any sussing of Putin's "stated intentions", or the presence or absence of any particular words or topics in any of Putin's public statements regarding the matter. As the leader of his country, Putin would have to be an incompetent boob of the highest (lowest ?) order for it to be otherwise.

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

No, everything is not about NATO.

But this particular thing is about NATO, to at least some significant degree.

Any notion that it isn't is bizarre and nonsensical.

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.

Given that he presently appears to have the upper hand, there is no reason for him to merely accept the separation of Donbass from Ukraine and leave it at that, without also seeking guarantees for a non-NATO Ukraine. If the situation should change and things start going poorly for Russia, then #1 might become the fallback - but taking such a deal now would be walking away with chips on the table (especially with Zelensky now making noises about agreeing to Ukrainian neutrality).

Whatever other motivations or objectives Putin might or might not have, the NATO angle is not an irrelevant red herring.

 

[TheTexan]

Yes. I am certain - absolutely certain - that Putin's actions are to some significant degree predicated upon the securement and expansion of Russia's sphere of influence (and the necessarily concomitant prevention of the expansion of NATO's sphere of influence). I am unable to take seriously any contention that this is not the case. This does not require any sussing of Putin's "stated intentions", or the presence or absence of any particular words or topics in any of Putin's public statements regarding the matter. As the leader of his country, Putin would have to be an incompetent boob of the highest (lowest ?) order for it to be otherwise.

​

No, everything is not about NATO.

But this particular thing is about NATO, to at least some significant degree.

Any notion that it isn't is bizarre and nonsensical.



Given that he presently appears to have the upper hand, there is no reason for him to merely accept the separation of Donbass from Ukraine and leave it at that, without also seeking guarantees for a non-NATO Ukraine. If the situation should change and things start going poorly for Russia, then #1 might become the fallback - but taking such a deal now would be walking away with chips on the table (especially with Zelensky now making noises about agreeing to Ukrainian neutrality).

Whatever other motivations or objectives Putin might or might not have, the NATO angle is not an irrelevant red herring.

You've moderated your words. It's about NATO "to some significant degree".

Your previous posts lacked such moderation. Which was my main point of contention.

I think we can all agree that it's about NATO "to some significant degree". But whether issues other than NATO are the primary driving factor, or whether NATO concessions is a prerequisite to any kind of peace treaty, I believe are legitimate questions for debate. It's not just "NATO".

there is no reason for him to merely accept the separation of Donbass from Ukraine and leave it at that

Keep in mind, he would look quite foolish on the world stage, if he publicly stated that he invaded Ukraine for reasons X and Y, and refused a peace treaty for X and Y, instead demanding Z.

By not including NATO as a direct cause in his purpose for intervention, it hurts his bargaining position to later require that in any kind of treaty.

 

[paleocon1]

Are we at war?

YES! With Eurasia.

WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

 

[acptulsa]

YES! With Eurasia.

We have always been. The only question is, will Eastasia finally join Eurasia and put us out of our misery?

 

[pcosmar]

Damn there are a lot of Nazi sympathizers.

 

[tod evans]

Damn there are a lot of Nazi sympathizers.

But only "The Right Type"...........

 

[Occam's Banana]

You've moderated your words. It's about NATO "to some significant degree".

Your previous posts lacked such moderation. Which was my main point of contention.

I don't understand what you mean by this. I haven't "moderated" anything.

From the very first sentence of my very first post in this thread on the subject of NATO:

Cornel West is right - this is a matter of "spheres of influence", and as such (and to some non-trivial degree), it is therefore about NATO [...]

And then from my second post on the subject:

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 ...)

I think we can all agree that it's about NATO "to some significant degree". But whether issues other than NATO are the primary driving factor, or whether NATO concessions is a prerequisite to any kind of peace treaty, I believe are legitimate questions for debate. It's not just "NATO".

At no point have I ever said or implied that "it's just [about] NATO".

I do, however, emphatically reject that the NATO issue is merely tangential to Putin's objectives, whatever else they may be.

There is just no way in hell that the curtailment of NATO expansion is not of major interest and concern to Putin and Russia, or that it is of only secondary importance to them and does not substantially factor into their policies and plans regarding Donbass and Ukraine.

Keep in mind, he would look quite foolish on the world stage, if he publicly stated that he invaded Ukraine for reasons X and Y, and refused a peace treaty for X and Y, instead demanding Z.

By not including NATO as a direct cause in his purpose for intervention, it hurts his bargaining position to later require that in any kind of treaty.

Not if everyone perfectly well understands (as everyone with any sense perfectly well does) that the curtailment of NATO expansion is of major interest and concern to Putin and Russia. Putin's bargaining position would be hurt only by finding himself in circumstances in which he does not have sufficient power or leverage to get the concessions he wants.

What he wants is Donbass as a client and a neutral Ukraine. Whether he gets both (or either) of those things remains to be seen - but the fact that he did not previously, explicitly, and publicly state that he wants the latter (despite the fact that everyone with any sense knows that he does want it) won't have anything at all to do with whether he gets it or not.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't understand what you mean by this. I haven't "moderated" anything.

If you say so. I have neither the time nor the desire to argue on this point. You have chosen specific excerpts to make your point, and I could likewise do the same, but such would be a tiresome effort with no consequence.

I have consistently taken a moderated position, that NATO is a factor but there are potentially larger immediate issues at play, and you have berated this position, or whatever carelessly constructed strawman you chose to berate in its stead.

Take that for what you will.

From the very first sentence of my very first post in this thread on the subject of NATO:

​

And then from my second post on the subject:

​

At no point have I ever said or implied that "it's just [about] NATO".

Again, it's not worth my effort to go back and choose excerpts to try to prove something. It's not my style. If it's not what you intended to say, it's certainly how you came across. Communication is a 2 way street and I'm willing to accept the share of miscommunication.

My over-arching point is that people seem to refuse to believe its even possible that Putin could be doing it to help Donbass.

If NATO didn't even exist, and everything else was otherwise the same, would Russia have not still intervened in Donbass?

 

[acptulsa]

 

[Occam's Banana]

If you say so. I have neither the time nor the desire to argue on this point. You have chosen specific excerpts to make your point, and I could likewise do the same, but such would be a tiresome effort with no consequence.

I have consistently taken a moderated position, that NATO is a factor but there are potentially larger immediate issues at play, and you have berated this position, or whatever carelessly constructed strawman you chose to berate in its stead.

Take that for what you will.

Again, it's not worth my effort to go back and choose excerpts to try to prove something. It's not my style. If it's not what you intended to say, it's certainly how you came across. Communication is a 2 way street and I'm willing to accept the share of miscommunication.

My over-arching point is that people seem to refuse to believe its even possible that Putin could be doing it to help Donbass.

If NATO didn't even exist, and everything else was otherwise the same, would Russia have not still intervened in Donbass?

*shrug* I'm perfectly content to leave it to others to read what I've said and judge for themselves. (I'll even do you the courtesy of not insulting you by denigrating your arguments while simultaneously going on about how it's all just too tedious and unimportant for me to bother supporting or defending my disparagements of them.)

 

[TheTexan]

*shrug* I'm perfectly content to leave it to others to read what I've said and judge for themselves. (I'll even do you the courtesy of not insulting you by denigrating your arguments while simultaneously going on about how it's all just too tedious and unimportant for me to bother supporting or defending my disparagements of them.)

Great, thanks. Did you have an answer for the below?

If NATO didn't even exist, and everything else was otherwise the same, would Russia have not still intervened in Donbass?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Great, thanks. Did you have an answer for the below?

If NATO didn't even exist, and everything else was otherwise the same, would Russia have not still intervened in Donbass?

No, I don't have an answer for that - at least, not an answer that wouldn't be just one of myriad possible answers, any of which would have to made up out of whole cloth.

NATO does exist - and if it didn't, everything else would not otherwise be the same.

Ukraine (and Donbass as a part of Ukraine) exists as it does today as a result of its formation as a Soviet republic.

NATO exists as it does today as one of the consequences of the existence of the union of Soviet republics.

Eliminate or significantly alter any one of those things, and you eliminate or significantly alter the others - thereby rendering the history and geo-politics of Europe so different from anything that actually exists today as to make it anyone's guess as to what Russia (or anyone else) would be doing or why they would be doing it.

 

[TheTexan]

No, I don't have an answer for that - at least, not an answer that wouldn't just be one of myriad possible answers, any of which would have to made up out of whole cloth.

NATO does exist - and if it didn't, everything else would not otherwise be the same.

Ukraine (and Donbass as a part of Ukraine) exists as it does today as a result of its formation as a Soviet republic.

NATO exists as it does today as one of the consequences of the existence of the union of Soviet republics.

Eliminate or significantly alter any one of those things, and you eliminate or significantly alter the others - thereby rendering the history and geo-politics of Europe so different from anything that actually exists today as to make it anyone's guess as to what Russia (or anyone else) would be doing or why they would be doing it.

In the absence of NATO, is it reasonably possible that Russia would have still intervened in Donbass? This is intended as a hypothetical question, as I don't see how any reasonable person can say no.

And if the answer is "yes" then it should be within the realm of possibility that NATO was indeed a secondary and not a primary cause for the intervention. Even describing it as "tangential" is within reason.

 

[pcosmar]

 

[Occam's Banana]

In the absence of NATO, is it reasonably possible that Russia would have still intervened in Donbass? This is intended as a hypothetical question, as I don't see how any reasonable person can say no.

And if the answer is "yes" then it should be within the realm of possibility that NATO was indeed a secondary and not a primary cause for the intervention. Even describing it as "tangential" is within reason.

I don't even know what to say to this, other than to repeat what I said before:

I do, however, emphatically reject that the NATO issue is merely tangential to Putin's objectives, whatever else they may be.

There is just no way in hell that the curtailment of NATO expansion is not of major interest and concern to Putin and Russia, or that it is of only secondary importance to them and does not substantially factor into their policies and plans regarding Donbass and Ukraine.

Whether you agree with that or not (and I just don't have so low an opinion of Putin's acumen to think otherwise), NATO does exist. What it might or might not be reasonably possible for Russia to do in a counterfactual Never-Never Land where NATO does not exist hasn't got anything to do with it.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't even know what to say to this, other than to repeat what I said before:


Whether you agree with that or not (and I just don't have so low an opinion of Putin's acumen to think otherwise), NATO does exist. What it might or might not be reasonably possible for Russia to do in a counterfactual Never-Never Land where NATO does not exist hasn't got anything to do with it.

NATO exists and therefore it's the dominant factor in Putin's decisions. Makes sense. Not circular at all.

 

[Occam's Banana]

NATO exists and therefore it's the dominant factor in Putin's decisions.

NATO's existence (and the curtailment of the expansion of its sphere of influence) absolutely is a significant factor in Putin's decisions, policies, and plans regarding Donbass and Ukraine, and is not tangential to them at all.

For it to be otherwise, Putin would have to be a complete and utter fool.

Whatever else he may be, Putin is not a fool.

Makes sense.

That's right. It does make sense.

Not circular at all.

That's right. It's not circular at all.

 

[TheTexan]

NATO's existence (and the curtailment of the expansion its sphere of influence) absolutely is a significant factor in Putin's decisions, policies, and plans regarding Donbass and Ukraine, and is not tangential to them at all.

For it to be otherwise, Putin would have to be a complete and utter fool.

Putin is not a fool.



That's right. It does make sense.



That's right. It's not circular at all.

Noone is questioning it was a significant factor. But that does not necessarily make it the dominant factor in his decision.

Why is this simple truth so hard for you to acknowledge? You resist acknowledging that it may be true that other motives were the dominant factors.

I understand you have your opinion (that NATO is the dominant factor) but your resistance to even the possibility that it was not the dominant factor, is simply not logical.