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

[acptulsa]

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.

I haven't seen him avow that it's the "dominant factor". Quite the opposite.

I also don't see why that's so important. Is there some fan fiction narrative out there that's dependant on Putin having none but purely altruistic motives toward Donbas? If so, I wouldn't buy into it for 1000:1 odds.

NATO is, to paraphrase the line from Tora Tora Tora, a knife leveled at Russia's throat. It has been since before even I was born. That's what it was designed to be. If Putin does very much more than blow his nose without taking NATO into account in his calculations, he's guilty of dereliction of duty.

The banana is right. Putin may be doing this because of NATO. He may be doing this in spite of NATO. He could easily have multiple motivations of which NATO is but one. But he's figuring NATO into his calculations. He cannot do otherwise.

 

[acptulsa]

Dp

 

[Occam's Banana]

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.

I haven't said anything at all about any factor being "dominant" (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor have I even used the word or any of its synonyms.

I have repeatedly and consistently said, from my very first post on the subject, that NATO is a non-trivially significant factor in Putin's calculations - a factor that is not at all tangential or secondary to whatever other objectives he may also have. Whether that factor is decisive (assuming that is what you mean by "dominant") in resolving any particular question regarding Ukraine or Donbass that Putin may have to contend with at any given moment is dependent on Putin's assessment of whatever he deems to be in the best interests of Russia - not the best interests of Donbass [1]. And whatever Putin deems to be in the best interests of Russia will be contingent upon circumstances at the time. But so long as NATO exists, one of those circumstances - one which will figure prominently in any and every calculation that Putin makes - will be the existence of NATO and the prospects for its expansion. (I hope that's not too "circular" for you. If it is, then I don't know what else to tell you.)



[1] And if the best interests of Donbass really do happen to coincide with whatever Putin decides to be in the best interests of Russia, then so much the better for Donbass. If not, then so much the worse for them.

 

[TheTexan]

I haven't said anything at all about any factor being "dominant" (whatever that is supposed to mean), nor have I even used the word or any of its synonyms.

I have repeatedly and consistently said, from my very first post on the subject, that NATO is a non-trivially significant factor in Putin's calculations - a factor that is not at all tangential or secondary to whatever other objectives he may also have. Whether that factor is decisive (assuming that is what you mean by "dominant") in resolving any particular question regarding Ukraine or Donbass that Putin may have to contend with at any given moment is dependent on Putin's assessment of whatever he deems to be in the best interests of Russia - not the best interests of Donbass [1]. And whatever Putin deems to be in the best interests of Russia will be contingent upon circumstances at the time. But so long as NATO exists, one of those circumstances - one which will figure prominently in any and every calculation that Putin makes - will be the existence of NATO and the prospects for its expansion. (I hope that's not too "circular" for you. If it is, then I don't know what else to tell you.)



[1] And if the best interests of Donbass really do happen to coincide with whatever Putin decides to be in the best interests of Russia, then so much the better for Donbass. If not, then so much the worse for them.

I'm getting a headache just even reading through these contradictions.

You've never said it was dominant. But it's definitely not secondary.

Your head is a mess on this topic.

Your response to this post as were all my others will be a headstrong denial.

I see no point in further discussion.

(And dominant means primary. Do you need a dictionary for this word?)

 

[TheTexan]

I haven't seen him avow that it's the "dominant factor". Quite the opposite.

I also don't see why that's so important. Is there some fan fiction narrative out there that's dependant on Putin having none but purely altruistic motives toward Donbas? If so, I wouldn't buy into it for 1000:1 odds.

NATO is, to paraphrase the line from Tora Tora Tora, a knife leveled at Russia's throat. It has been since before even I was born. That's what it was designed to be. If Putin does very much more than blow his nose without taking NATO into account in his calculations, he's guilty of dereliction of duty.

The banana is right. Putin may be doing this because of NATO. He may be doing this in spite of NATO. He could easily have multiple motivations of which NATO is but one. But he's figuring NATO into his calculations. He cannot do otherwise.

It's important because what is happening in Donbass is real and attributing motivation to NATO without honest consideration of alternative motives highlights deep seeded prejudices from decades of propaganda.

I ask these questions for the same reason I believe I drilled you on Trump related questions some years back. To determine if you had blind hatred from TDS, or more legitimate hatred from a more considered approach. I suspected the first but after some time I fell on the latter.

As with the Banana, I suspect there are prejudices which he either is not aware of or is unwilling to share. As with TDS, there is no way for me to make him aware of the contradictions in his head.

 

[TheTexan]

If NATO sets my separated garage on fire, and I put out the fire, I'm putting out the fire because there is a fire. Not because I'm seeking NATO policy objectives.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

 

[Brian4Liberty]

It's important because what is happening in Donbass is real and attributing motivation to NATO without honest consideration of alternative motives highlights deep seeded prejudices from decades of propaganda.

I ask these questions for the same reason I believe I drilled you on Trump related questions some years back. To determine if you had blind hatred from TDS, or more legitimate hatred from a more considered approach. I suspected the first but after some time I fell on the latter.

As with the Banana, I suspect there are prejudices which he either is not aware of or is unwilling to share. As with TDS, there is no way for me to make him aware of the contradictions in his head.

No one on this forum is denying that Ukraine's war on the Donbass area did not play a role. Your beef is with the MSM and US politicians and pundits, not members of this forum.

NATO encroachment and threats have also played a role. There's no reason that those two motivations can't be equal and or synergistic.

IIRC, no one has mentioned that it is very desirable for Russia to have a land connection and coastline that connects with Crimea. I believe that is also a goal of Putin, and his military actions have born that out as an objective. But I am not going to endlessly debate everyone on the forum who doesn't believe that this is a third motivation.

 

[TheTexan]

No one on this forum is denying that Ukraine's war on the Donbass area did not play a role. Your beef is with the MSM and US politicians and pundits, not members of this forum.

NATO encroachment and threats have also played a role. There's no reason that those two motivations can't be equal and or synergistic.

IIRC, no one has mentioned that it is very desirable for Russia to have a land connection and coastline that connects with Crimea. I believe that is also a goal of Putin, and his military actions have born that out as an objective. But I am not going to endlessly debate everyone on the forum who doesn't believe that this is a third motivation.

You've taken a moderated position. There are many factors at play. I have no dispute with that.

My dispute is with the belief that NATO is with certainty the primary factor. The banana has taken this position and does not seem aware he has taken this position. He has quoted excerpts where he states NATO is a "non trivial factor". What he has not quoted excerpts of, are when he says it is "not at all secondary".

For reference,
1) Primary (or "dominant")
2) Secondary
3) Tertiary

If something is "not at all secondary", and not tertiary, that only leaves "primary".

I had hoped to have a productive discussion on why NATO is not the primary cause of putins decision to intervene, but such a discussion cannot be had with someone who is unable to articulate with consistency his own position.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I'm getting a headache just even reading through these contradictions.

You've never said it was dominant. But it's definitely not secondary.

That's right. It's not secondary. I have explicitly said so:

I have [...] said [...] that NATO is a non-trivially significant factor in Putin's calculations - a factor that is not at all tangential or secondary [...]

But it does not follow from this that I mean it obviates all other factors - i.e., that it is singularly "dominant" in the sense that you are trying to impute to me.

I doubt that you would be getting such a bug up your nose (or such an ache in your head) if, on some other issue, someone were to say something such as "X is a primary [i.e., non-secondary] consideration regarding Y". You would understand perfectly well that such a statement did not mean to convey that "X is the sole and singularly dominant consideration regarding Y, obviating all others" - and I am not accountable to your insistence on inferring that sense from what I have said.

Your head is a mess on this topic.

Your response to this post as were all my others will be a headstrong denial.

I see no point in further discussion.

(And dominant means primary. Do you need a dictionary for this word?)

I have a dictionary, thank you. I stand by all the words I have used and the sense and logic behind my usage of each of them.

As I said before, I am content to leave it to others to read my posts and judge for themselves whether my "head is a mess on this topic".

 

[TheTexan]

That's right. It's not secondary. I have explicitly said so:

​

But it does not follow from this that I mean it obviates all other factors - i.e., that it is singularly "dominant" in the sense that you are trying to impute to me.

I doubt that you would be getting such a bug up your nose (or such an ache in your head) if, on some other issue, someone were to say something such as "X is a primary [i.e., non-secondary] consideration regarding Y". You would understand perfectly well that such a statement did not mean to convey that "X is the sole and singularly dominant consideration regarding Y, obviating all others" - and I am not accountable to your insistence on inferring that sense from what I have said.

If I'm being specific on the meaning of primary and secondary it's because I am trying to understand your position, and I have known you to generally be specific with your words.

I have asked a series of questions that would provide the understanding I am looking for and you have evaded answering the questions for one reason or another.

I don't think you are being intentionally evasive but this is how you have come across.

(edited to below)

I have never said that you implied there weren't secondary and tertiary concerns. I have only said that you believe that NATO concessions is 100% absolutely the primary reason why Putin intervened.

Which is what you have now confirmed.

You previously claimed to have taken a moderated position (it is a "non-trivial factor") but this is not true. Your position is not moderated at all. Your position is that it is the primary factor, without doubt, 100%.

Which is how I understood your position from the beginning, but was confused by your denials of that position. ("I have only said its a non-trivial factor")

Unless I am misunderstanding.

 

[acptulsa]

As I said before, I am content to leave it to others to read my posts and judge for themselves whether my "head is a mess on this topic".

In all fairness, it's hard to tell if you're having a bad hair day from here.

But if you are, rest assured we love you anyway.

 

[Madison320]

Is the irony lost on anyone that the same left that praised Jane Fonda for talking to the North Vietnamese while we were actively at war with them is somehow bothered by people mildly questioning the narrative of a war with country that we are NOT at war with?

I agree. The whole thing is confusing to me. What did she say that was so bad? We're funding bio lab facilities in the Ukraine? I just don't get it. Like you said it was so mild. She might as well have said "The weather is nice in the Ukraine".

 

[acptulsa]

I agree. The whole thing is confusing to me. What did she say that was so bad? We're funding bio lab facilities in the Ukraine? I just don't get it. Like you said it was so mild. She might as well have said "The weather is nice in the Ukraine".

If people don't see heads explode over these two, will they be able to tell they're "opposition"? The controlled opposition is so heavily controlled it's getting awfully hard to spot them without that.