Not an analogy, an attempt to find some consistency in your positions. The only one I can find so far is taking the side of Russia (in its various incarnations) in armed conflicts.
Also worth pointing out how your wording here has managed to disappear Ukraine entirely.
There's consistency and there's "foolish consistency" -- "the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson).
A search for consistency in my positions on WWII and the proxy war in Ukraine would involve searching for a "foolish consistency," IMHO.
I'll admit that my mind is too small to understand this reply as anything beyond an admission that you have no answer. And note that, for a third time in a row, you insist on disappearing the Ukrainians from their own story.
Paul says that consistent peace activism is a "foolish consistency". We should take him at his word, that it's what he believes.
And it's demeaning and insulting to dehumanize the Ukrainian people, who are genuinely fighting for their own freedom from rule by Moscow, by calling their sacrifices a "proxy war".
Seeking to analogize WWII and the US/NATO proxy war against Russia is an exercise in futility.
I think by now we can clearly see this is not a proxy war - Vlad wants Ukraine and has taken parts it illegally. He has zero regards in making his civilians cannon fodder. This has always been about a new world order, regime change and returning Ukraine to it's rightful owners. Any justification plays as a win win for Vlad. And using oil as his bargaining chip. It will all be worth it if we're able to eliminate any dependence on Russian oil. T**** actually had a good point about Nord Stream 2. The wall is going back up in Russia - I feel for the people - they deserve much better - and they're really good people. Putin's actions have lead to unimaginable/unnecessary suffering on both sides. This war will slog on until something happens in Russia - I've called this from the start.
Did you see this?
I didn't see that -I'm hardly eve on the Twitterverse - most tweets I read are those posted on here. But I did not have to see this post - it's rather common knowledge.
Vlad has truly squashed the right to protest very effectively. I'm just hoping someday this won't be the case and Russians can live normally without Putin's goons forcing the masses to capitulate to his desires.
They are operating like nazi Germany, who knows how Putin is planning his exit? Unlike Hitler, he doesn’t have the balls to kill himself, he would rather run to South America like Hitler’s henchmen. Venezuela is a safe haven for Russians now. Russia might very well end up in a civil war.
I suspect that Russian-speaking Ukrainian don't much appreciate having their lives upended by Putin's attempted smash and grab operation.
Russian-speaking Ukrainians have been against Putin's efforts to undermine their country for a long time. I posted this on this thread back in June, about Russian-speaking Ukrainian writer Andrei Kurkov, and his novel about the Russian-provoked "insurrection" in the Donbass and occupation of Crimea -
I finished reading the novel "Grey Bees", by Andrey Kurkov, the other day. The protagonist Sergey Sergeyich lives in a village in the "grey zone" in the Donbas, between the separatists and the Ukrainian army. He keeps bees, and he travels into Ukraine with his hives to find an orchard for them to spend the summer near, so that they can make honey. After spending time in one town, he has to leave and so travels to find a beekeeper he met years ago, who lives in Crimea.
The beekeeper he knew is a Crimean Tartar, and Sergeyich finds out that he had been taken away by the Russian police a couple of years earlier. After spending some time there with the remaining family, he prepares to head home at the end of the summer. He has a conversation with a shopkeeper about the family.
“Those Tartars of yours, they’re getting kicked out,” the woman said, suddenly changing the topic. “They don’t like us, you know.”
“What do you mean, they don’t like us? They’ve been helping me.”
Well, you’re not us. We’re Russian. And they don’t respect Russian authority. So the people in charge will probably make’em go back to their Uzbekistans and such … That’s where they should of stayed, anyway … What did they have to come down here for?”
“Well, this is their land,” the beekeeper offered timidly.
“The hell it is!” the woman said indignantly, but without malice. This land’s been Russian Orthodox since time immemorial! Russians brought Orthodoxy from Turkey, brought it to Chersonesus, back before there were any Muslims. It was later that the Turks sent in the Tatars, along with their Islam. When Putin was here, he told the whole story – this is sacred Russian land.”
Well, I haven’t looked into the history,” Sergeyich shrugged. “Who knows what happened?”
“What happened is what Putin says happened,” she insisted. "Putin doesn’t lie.”
Not an analogy, an attempt to find some consistency in your positions. The only one I can find so far is taking the side of Russia (in its various incarnations) in armed conflicts.
Also worth pointing out how your wording here has managed to disappear Ukraine entirely.
There's consistency and there's "foolish consistency" -- "the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson).
A search for consistency in my positions on WWII and the proxy war in Ukraine would involve searching for a "foolish consistency," IMHO.
I'll admit that my mind is too small to understand this reply as anything beyond an admission that you have no answer. And note that, for a third time in a row, you insist on disappearing the Ukrainians from their own story.
Paul says that consistent peace activism is a "foolish consistency". We should take him at his word, that it's what he believes.
And it's demeaning and insulting to dehumanize the Ukrainian people, who are genuinely fighting for their own freedom from rule by Moscow, by calling their sacrifices a "proxy war".
This really turns the discussion upside down. Desperate.
This really turns the discussion upside down. Desperate.
As I've written multiple times, I'm not a fan of the term "proxy war." Having said that, I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you used it consistently -- for instance, the separatists Russia has been backing in eastern Ukraine since 2014 fit the term "proxy" as you've been using it far better than the forces of the Ukrainian government. I don't believe I've ever once see you term those forces as "Russian proxies" or said that the separatists are were waging a Russian proxy war against Kyiv, though.
I suppose it's my own fault for expecting any consistency from you? Well, not entirely true. I can't point to a single instance where you've been opposed to Russian military action, either in it's Soviet or post-Soviet form. That would keep your WWII position consistent as well.
Sanctions Update/ Or, Von Der Leyen gets flack from allies Part 2:
The "La Scala" Milan theater presented the opera "Boris Godunov" by the 19th-century Russian author Modest Mussorgsky, in the presence of a group of political officials headed by Georgia Meloni and Ursula von der Leyen. pic.twitter.com/nxYdqwgwGv
This really turns the discussion upside down. Desperate.
As I've written multiple times, I'm not a fan of the term "proxy war." Having said that, I'd be more inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt if you used it consistently -- for instance, the separatists Russia has been backing in eastern Ukraine since 2014 fit the term "proxy" as you've been using it far better than the forces of the Ukrainian government. I don't believe I've ever once see you term those forces as "Russian proxies" or said that the separatists are were waging a Russian proxy war against Kyiv, though.
I suppose it's my own fault for expecting any consistency from you? Well, not entirely true. I can't point to a single instance where you've been opposed to Russian military action, either in it's Soviet or post-Soviet form. That would keep your WWII position consistent as well.
Russia assisted the separatists in their war against the central government, but in doing that Russia was not fighting a proxy war to overthrow the government of Ukraine.
US/NATO are assisting Ukraine fight against the Russian invaders, but their overarching goal is to overthrow the Putin regime. The same goal behind NATO's expansion, build-up of Ukrainian forces, and refusal to resolve the Donbas conflict. It's always been about regime-change in Russia. Ukraine's survival and defense are secondary concern to the US/NATO and the EU. That's why they sabotaged the tentative settlement in April.
Regarding your statement "I can't point to a single instance where you've been opposed to Russian military action" -- is that a joke?
It's always been about regime-change in Russia. Ukraine's survival and defense are secondary concern to the US/NATO and the EU. That's why they sabotaged the tentative settlement in April.
I am going to bet that 100% of NATO countries besides the U.S. (and I would leave the U.S. in the list except I understand you view the U.S. as the root of all evil) could care less who in running Russia. However, they do care about Ukraine - and this feeling gets stronger as you travel East - because their view is that if Russia can rape Ukraine, where does that leave them.
Russia assisted the separatists in their war against the central government, but in doing that Russia was not fighting a proxy war to overthrow the government of Ukraine.
US/NATO are assisting Ukraine fight against the Russian invaders, but their overarching goal is to overthrow the Putin regime. The same goal behind NATO's expansion, build-up of Ukrainian forces, and refusal to resolve the Donbas conflict. It's always been about regime-change in Russia. Ukraine's survival and defense are secondary concern to the US/NATO and the EU. That's why they sabotaged the tentative settlement in April.
Regarding your statement "I can't point to a single instance where you've been opposed to Russian military action" -- is that a joke?
Let's dissect this post in an effort to display how insane it is.
Russia assisted the separatists in their war against the central government, but in doing that Russia was not fighting a proxy war to overthrow the government of Ukraine.
This can't be serious. While one might argue that the separatists, supported by the Russians, were not trying to overthrow the Ukrainian government writ large, they were most certainly - and fully supported in working towards this goal - aiming to evict the Ukrainian government from Crimea. Of course, once Crimea was no longer part of Ukraine, it would be absorbed into Mother Russia (as Putin claims to have done).
US/NATO are assisting Ukraine fight against the Russian invaders, but their overarching goal is to overthrow the Putin regime. The same goal behind NATO's expansion, build-up of Ukrainian forces, and refusal to resolve the Donbas conflict. It's always been about regime-change in Russia. Ukraine's survival and defense are secondary concern to the US/NATO and the EU. That's why they sabotaged the tentative settlement in April.
Are you really contending that the US/NATO acted with the intent to and successfully lured Russia into invading Ukraine so that it could provide military support to Ukraine (which is conditioned upon such munitions not being used outside of pre-Feb. 24 Ukraine borders) all in an effort to overthrow Putin and his government. Are you also arguing that the US/NATO would continue providing military support to Ukraine if Russia withdrew to the pre-Feb. 24 borders so that the AFU could engage Russia on Russian soil? Because that is the argument that you are presenting.
US/NATO are assisting Ukraine fight against the Russian invaders, but their overarching goal is to overthrow the Putin regime. The same goal behind NATO's expansion, build-up of Ukrainian forces, and refusal to resolve the Donbas conflict. It's always been about regime-change in Russia.
Alas, my hobbled goblin mind can't imagine how that's supposed to work. Russia's neighbors joining NATO causes Putin to freak out and resign? NATO tricks Russia into invading Ukraine and, for some reason, this causes Putin to resign?
Regarding your statement "I can't point to a single instance where you've been opposed to Russian military action" -- is that a joke?
No, I'm serious. You say you oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for instance, but then you say that Ukraine should surrender all territory Russia has taken and NATO should agree to all Russian demands. Substantive support outweighs rhetorical opposition.
I do not read Ukrainian, but it appears that this youtube video was recently filmed in Ukraine. Also, like many of you, I recently learned that Carol of the Bells was written by a Ukrainian. We do it as a Christmas carol in the US with different lyrics, but the original Ukraine lyrics are very good.
No, I'm serious. You say you oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, for instance, but then you say that Ukraine should surrender all territory Russia has taken and NATO should agree to all Russian demands. Substantive support outweighs rhetorical opposition.
To simplify, think 6,000 Azov fighters in the Mariupol Steelworks. Ukraine is facing a larger, slow-motion version with the same choices available.
To simplify, think 6,000 Azov fighters in the Mariupol Steelworks. Ukraine is facing a larger, slow-motion version with the same choices available.
I could find similar situations in Europe between 1939 and 1945, but you've already pointed out the fruitlessness of trying to discern any through lines in your reasoning here.
To simplify, think 6,000 Azov fighters in the Mariupol Steelworks. Ukraine is facing a larger, slow-motion version with the same choices available.
I could find similar situations in Europe between 1939 and 1945, but you've already pointed out the fruitlessness of trying to discern any through lines in your reasoning here.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up with packthread, do. Else if you would be a man speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. Ah, then, exclaim the aged ladies, you shall be sure to be misunderstood! Misunderstood! It is a right fool’s word. Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
Thanks for the info on civilians helping Ukraine. I will check it out. My best friends growing up were 2nd/3rd generation immigrants whose grandparents had fled Ukraine and the communists. They wound up in Brooklyn and then NJ. I wish I could go back in time and ask their parents about leaving Ukraine for America. Maplewood has many people of Ukrainian ancestry.
An added thought: The US, Ukraine and Russian national anthems all proclaim freedom. So, I would ask Paul if freedom is worth fighting for and perhaps dying for. No doubt war is hell and all wars have had mixed motives and were not just about freedom. The US has certainly had wars for freedom but also wars for imperialist conquest. We are no angels. But, the current attack by Putin on Ukraine is a flat-out imperialist colonialist power grab. The Ukrainians are fighting for freedom as a legitimate nation and we need to support them.
US/NATO are assisting Ukraine fight against the Russian invaders, but their overarching goal is to overthrow the Putin regime. The same goal behind NATO's expansion, build-up of Ukrainian forces, and refusal to resolve the Donbas conflict. It's always been about regime-change in Russia.
Alas, my hobbled goblin mind can't imagine how that's supposed to work. Russia's neighbors joining NATO causes Putin to freak out and resign? NATO tricks Russia into invading Ukraine and, for some reason, this causes Putin to resign?
Why do you even bother? There's no logical consistency or factual support for the "argument" he's making, it's just rhetorically flinging feces out of the cage.
To simplify, think 6,000 Azov fighters in the Mariupol Steelworks. Ukraine is facing a larger, slow-motion version with the same choices available.
I could find similar situations in Europe between 1939 and 1945, but you've already pointed out the fruitlessness of trying to discern any through lines in your reasoning here.
With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Out upon your guarded lips! Sew them up with packthread, do. Else if you would be a man speak what you think today in words as hard as cannon balls, and tomorrow speak what tomorrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said today. Ah, then, exclaim the aged ladies, you shall be sure to be misunderstood! Misunderstood! It is a right fool’s word. Is it so bad then to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.
in times of deceit speaking the truth becomes a revolutionary act. (Sometimes attributed to Orwell)
Paul says that consistent peace activism is a "foolish consistency". We should take him at his word, that it's what he believes.
And it's demeaning and insulting to dehumanize the Ukrainian people, who are genuinely fighting for their own freedom from rule by Moscow, by calling their sacrifices a "proxy war".