Jump to content

Russian army under equipped?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

Maybe the main issue here is moral relativism vs a belief in good and evil. Although I guess you can be both.  You are I think firmly in the moral relativism camp, and I firmly believe in good and evil.  It is not evil to do self defense.

"

This confuses me a bit, since you agreed on my argument before, yet my argument was about how none of that mattered anyway!  Though...

HerrTomm"

I'm not sure whats confusing about it so I'm not sure how to respond.  I was agreeing with you that countries don't do what they think is best for the planet or good or whatever, but whatever is in their best interest and either justifiable or justification isn't necessary. 

But I was also saying that I believe in good and evil, and I think it would be better for the world if nations', particularly the US, would try harder to limit its actions to the "good" ones, while avoiding the "evil" ones, even if that isn't the best course of action based on some calculus using some morally relativistic humanitarian number crunching. 

Edit to add

1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Your world view is both logically and morally flawed as it is hypocritical.

I don't mind being called hypocritical or illogical because I like arguing so much and am confident of not being those things (at least not much ;) ), I'll point out for whatever reason that this was another escalation, as I hadn't actually called any of y'all hypocritical, just the US government, which unfortunately isn't any of you.  But again I don't mind, feels like im finally getting into the thick of it ;)

 

And just because I didn't say it doesn't mean I didn't mean it ;)

Edited by cool breeze
to add
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Krizantema could use some work in how it's modeled, I'm told. Here to help us out with all sorts of amazing visuals and (I would hope) military technical commentary is the intrepid reporter I try not to hate because he gets to go play with the toys. In many ways, this video eclipses several added together. IN terms of info content, this beats the /armata video to death. It's going to take me some time to process all the things shown. There are lots of things shown.  To Sublime--with grog goodness!

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of a sudden I felt real awkward calling some of our governments actions evil with all these wonderful vets on the forum of whom I have so much respect.  Even when the nation is doing some evil things that the soldiers might be involved in, crimes against humanity and such excluded and not relevant, it is Good to join the military and be a soldier, even if the nation is currently engaged in a sort of evil war.  Nations need soldiers and they should follow orders(within reason), its a very noble and good way to serve and sacrifice for ones nation and world peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not making 'unsupported pronouncements' and 'riding off' here Steve, please note that my comments are mere observations on your own and thus they are more than adequately supported by the jingoistic drivel you have plastered all over this thread.....The reason I'm not hanging around to discuss this with you is because I long ago learned never to feed a troll, even when they have admin status.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

All the experts that won't say its mostly the US's fault.  We've been destabilizing the region for a very long time. 

Now you're just being silly.  What you're saying, with one sweep of your hand, is that anybody that holds the opinion that Assad's murderous rampage didn't create the grounds for ISIS is a liar and in the pay of... I dunno, some evil global conspiracy?  You're not going to get very far in a debate if that's your answer to everything that's uncomfortable for your point of view.

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

How would the rebels really have captured Damascus from the army?  Bad credentials, I know, but my time playing CM makes that seem almost ludicrous.  Has an uncon force ever done anything remotely like that against a functioning modern state before?

If you're ignorant of recent history, then please don't speak about it.  Go and look back at the articles written at the time.  Check out the maps.  Assad was losing the war very early on, very quickly.  This was temporarily stabilized by Iran using Hezbolah and other ground forces.  Russia backed it up with weapons and munitions.  Then things started to shift again and Assad was once again on the ropes.  Then the Russian bombing campaign and mercenaries came into play and things have once again sorta stabilized.

As for what would have come after, if you call a regime that murders hundreds of thousands of people as a "functioning modern state", I suppose you can do that.

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

I think I admitted you had a lot of sound points, but not these.  I did not argue any of those things, nor is my world view what you say or think it is.  And I only actually argued with you about anything after you had called me "highly immoral and highly selfish".  I do feel I should continue tho after the challenge ;)  and actually kinda appreciate the attention, no hard feelings, actually feel a little good to have riled you up ;)

Riled up?  Hardly.  I've had this debate before.  It's not difficult to take the position that moral absolutism can not exist without extreme levels of hipocracy.

49 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

But I was also saying that I believe in good and evil, and I think it would be better for the world if nations', particularly the US, would try harder to limit its actions to the "good" ones, while avoiding the "evil" ones, even if that isn't the best course of action based on some calculus using some morally relativistic humanitarian number crunching. 

If this was your position, who would argue with it?  Instead you're arguing that the US and Russia are on a moral equivalency because the US is also a self interested party.  That's where you run into rough waters.

49 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

I don't mind being called hypocritical or illogical because I like arguing so much and am confident of not being those things (at least not much ;) ),

You should not be so confident.

49 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

I'll point out for whatever reason that this was another escalation, as I hadn't actually called any of y'all hypocritical, just the US government, which unfortunately isn't any of you.  But again I don't mind, feels like im finally getting into the thick of it ;)

You've got a flawed position and I've pointed out where and why it is flawed.  If you want to dance around it instead of defending your position, that's fine.  But it's not doing your argument any credit.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, cool breeze said:

But I was also saying that I believe in good and evil, and I think it would be better for the world if nations', particularly the US, would try harder to limit its actions to the "good" ones, while avoiding the "evil" ones, even if that isn't the best course of action based on some calculus using some morally relativistic humanitarian number crunching. 

If this was your position, who would argue with it?  Instead you're arguing that the US and Russia are on a moral equivalency because the US is also a self interested party.  That's where you run into rough waters.

 

This is my position. I never said any of the words you're putting in my mouth, glad to see we are in agreement.  (I win?!)

Edited by cool breeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure better to arm Al Qaeda affiliated groups and get them to become the new government. Totally ignoring any facts and actually saying Assad has murdered thousands is totally ignoring any facts that there is a total conflict where both government and rebel forces have committed crimes.

I'd rather that we can actually look at Syria and see another US or who ever geo political strategy of toppling an anti-westernish regime and installing a new proxy. 

To deny the US has been doing so in the region is plain out sillyness. US can care less whether or not Syrians live under a dictator or what say you, they're more interested in the gains from it, or what directly effects the US. 

Assad is definitely not the creator of ISIS those are laughable claims, I'm quite sure a certain recentish war a while back in Iraq is one of the main reasons. The whole middle east is destabilized and that is far from Assad's fault. Steve you make good points sometimes but c'mon this one is pushing it too far. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I'd rather that we can actually look at Syria and see another US or who ever geo political strategy of toppling an anti-westernish regime and installing a new proxy. 

To deny the US has been doing so in the region is plain out sillyness. US can care less whether or not Syrians live under a dictator or what say you, they're more interested in the gains from it, or what directly effects the US. 

Assad is definitely not the creator of ISIS those are laughable claims, I'm quite sure a certain recentish war a while back in Iraq is one of the main reasons. The whole middle east is destabilized and that is far from Assad's fault. Steve you make good points sometimes but c'mon this one is pushing it too far. "

That's my layman's perspective on it too.  Sillyness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

It's a great place to work in engineering!  I'm still happy where I am though :P

Not so much lately, but thankfully for you Germany is a decent place for engineers too ;)

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

My contention to the first part of this is that no one has really perfected regime change.  Unless it comes from absolutely overwhelming internal support both from above and below, it seems almost destined to be messy, bloody, and/or ineffective.

Sadly this is true.  However, most of the places that try for regime change fail because there is some other greater force at work.  Tribal affiliation, religion, or outside influences are the most common of them.  Ukraine could have had a bloodless change of government if Russia has allowed it to happen, but then again I'm not sure how much would have changed.  Which is the irony of Russia's actions in Ukraine... the war has clarified things for most Ukrainians that Russia is not its friend, but rather a malevolent neighbor intent on doing it harm.  This has in turn helped it accelerate change from within.  The purging of Soviet statutes, names, and institutions is not window dressing... it is an important step towards something else.

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

Phrasing like this puts people on the defensive, makes them dig their heels in, and usually doesn't help the discussion.  I don't mean to single you out Steve, since you're the best contributor to this thread alongside Vlad and armoured cabbage thrower.  It's endemic to this thread in everyone.  I'm sure I'm guilty of it sometimes.  I understand it's frustrating talking about the same stuff over and over again usw. but isn't it better to attack the point and not the person?

I do not attack anything, either a point or a person.  What I do is challenge a point and by extension the person.  However, when someone creates a position which they themselves do not likely believe, debate becomes rather difficult.  If the issue then becomes central and the points raised are not being defended, then it becomes rather difficult to have a serious debate. 

Arguing morality is especially difficult.  It is something I've been loath to do for most of this thread.  Instead I've been arguing about responsibility, as one would argue in a court of law.  When someone wishes to dismiss this approach and adopt a position of moral superiority, then they need to be prepared to engage on that level.  And if they can not, then there's cause for calling the person out on it.  Arguing a superior moral position comes with enormous responsibility, not flippant responses and shallow defenses.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'm not making 'unsupported pronouncements' and 'riding off' here Steve, please note that my comments are mere observations on your own and thus they are more than adequately supported by the jingoistic drivel you have plastered all over this thread.....The reason I'm not hanging around to discuss this with you is because I long ago learned never to feed a troll, even when they have admin status.

Oh good lord.  Here's the definition of troll:

"In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion,[3] often for their own amusement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Since I'm engaging in debate, rationally and with supported arguments, while you just toss in a couple of insult grenades and make broad and unsubstantiated accusations, it's pretty clear who the troll is.  It is not me, that's for sure.

It's been a very long time since I banned anybody on this Forum.  If you wish to engage in a debate here, do so.  If you want to limit your posts to calling me names, then you are in violation of the Forum rules.  Rules that exist to allow debates without trolls deliberately trying to derail them. 

The choice is yours.

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

How would the rebels really have captured Damascus from the army?  Bad credentials, I know, but my time playing CM makes that seem almost ludicrous.  Has an uncon force ever done anything remotely like that against a functioning modern state before?

 

If you're ignorant of recent history, then please don't speak about it.  Go and look back at the articles written at the time.  Check out the maps.  Assad was losing the war very early on, very quickly.  This was temporarily stabilized by Iran using Hezbolah and other ground forces.  Russia backed it up with weapons and munitions.  Then things started to shift again and Assad was once again on the ropes.  Then the Russian bombing campaign and mercenaries came into play and things have once again sorta stabilized.

As for what would have come after, if you call a regime that murders hundreds of thousands of people as a "functioning modern state", I suppose you can do that.

Steve"

First of all the people who thought it would work should have factored Syria having friends who might help into their plans.  I assume they did and knew it wouldn't work but I'm a cynic.  Secondly I feel your beating around the bush as to my question, and an unconventional force doing something like capturing Damascus against a semi-functioning state (so I'm not counting post invasion Iraq against ISIS) goes without historical precedent.  Without the plan to overthrow Assad via "rebellion" having a viable means of taking it all the way to the finish, it doesn't seem like anything more than a way to cause more devastation in an already devastated region. 

 

"Arguing morality is especially difficult.  It is something I've been loath to do for most of this thread.  Instead I've been arguing about responsibility, as one would argue in a court of law.  When someone wishes to dismiss this approach and adopt a position of moral superiority, then they need to be prepared to engage on that level.  And if they can not, then there's cause for calling the person out on it.  Arguing a superior moral position comes with enormous responsibility, not flippant responses and shallow defenses.

Steve"

I don't see my responses as flippant or shallow and you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise in the slightest.

You are the one that keeps using the moral high ground argument, US is good and Russia is bad, we can support rebellions because we are the good righteous guys and Russia can't because they are world terrorizors.   All I said is that I believe in good and evil, but now Ill add that moral relativism is bunk and immoral.

 

"

2 hours ago, cool breeze said:

All the experts that won't say its mostly the US's fault.  We've been destabilizing the region for a very long time. 

Now you're just being silly.  What you're saying, with one sweep of your hand, is that anybody that holds the opinion that Assad's murderous rampage didn't create the grounds for ISIS is a liar and in the pay of... I dunno, some evil global conspiracy?  You're not going to get very far in a debate if that's your answer to everything that's uncomfortable for your point of view.

"

 

Besides you flagrantly putting words in my mouth here, how exactly did you get your number that most "terrorism experts" agree that it is "mostly assads fault"?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Sure better to arm Al Qaeda affiliated groups and get them to become the new government. Totally ignoring any facts and actually saying Assad has murdered thousands is totally ignoring any facts that there is a total conflict where both government and rebel forces have committed crimes.

Of course all sides have committed crimes.  It is a super nasty civil war where there is no good guys on any side.  But not even ISIS has murdered on the scale of Assad.  Plus, as the ruling government Assad had a choice back when this all started.  The peaceful protests against his autocratic and corrupt minority rule could have been respected and a dialog opened up to create a better Syria.  Instead he sent in the tanks and his death squads.

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

I'd rather that we can actually look at Syria and see another US or who ever geo political strategy of toppling an anti-westernish regime and installing a new proxy. 

And we can't look at it and see Russia and Iran backing up a proxy to maintain an anti-Westernish regime?  Despite how many hundreds of thousands are killed and millions displaced?

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

To deny the US has been doing so in the region is plain out sillyness. US can care less whether or not Syrians live under a dictator or what say you, they're more interested in the gains from it, or what directly effects the US. 

There's very little to gain from Syria.  It doesn't have much to offer the West that the West doesn't already have.  However, it does offer Russia something it otherwise will lose.  That is why Russia has been the #1 champion of Assad.

19 minutes ago, VladimirTarasov said:

Assad is definitely not the creator of ISIS those are laughable claims, I'm quite sure a certain recentish war a while back in Iraq is one of the main reasons. The whole middle east is destabilized and that is far from Assad's fault. Steve you make good points sometimes but c'mon this one is pushing it too far. 

You are ignorant of your own history and what your country is doing to Ukraine, so I am not surprised you have even less understanding of Syria.  Here are some articles to help you.  Of course you are welcome to search on your own.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/how-isis-started-syria-iraq/412042/

http://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631

the point is the rise of ISIS was probably inevitable, and definitely caused by the battle between the Gulf States and Iran.  However, it has been the battlefield of Syria that allowed it to exist and to act as recruiter for foreign fighters.  The longer the war goes on, the more ISIS gains from it.  Though it does seem that perhaps it is finally on the decline militarily.

16 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

That's my layman's perspective on it too.  Sillyness. 

As with your other perspectives, it's over simplified.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You've got a flawed position and I've pointed out where and why it is flawed.  If you want to dance around it instead of defending your position, that's fine.  But it's not doing your argument any credit.

Steve"

 

To me I have a very simple and straight forward position and none of you're "attacks" have even been close to hitting let alone denting armour, while I've been staying still rather than dancing.

Edited by cool breeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cool breeze, I don't know what you're doing to mess up the quotation system on this Forum, but please try to not do whatever it is.  It's very confusing.

6 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

First of all the people who thought it would work should have factored Syria having friends who might help into their plans.  I assume they did and knew it wouldn't work but I'm a cynic. 

The rise against Assad was the local response from the Arab Spring, which was a domestic reaction against Assad's tyranny.  The Arab Spring caught the West off guard and, in many minds, was done despite the West instead of in cooperation with them.  As far as I've seen the West had very little to do with what happened in Syria except by example which (supposedly) you support.

6 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Secondly I feel your beating around the bush as to my question, and an unconventional force doing something like capturing Damascus against a semi-functioning state (so I'm not counting post invasion Iraq against ISIS) goes without historical precedent.  Without the plan to overthrow Assad via "rebellion" having a viable means of taking it all the way to the finish, it doesn't seem like anything more than a way to cause more devastation in an already devastated region. 

No beating around the bush.  The chances of there being a stable regime to replace Assad's even 3-4 years ago, without Assad's compliance, was about near zero.  Western talk and attempts to help would have come to nothing because one can not national build without forces on the ground in total control, which would mean fighting a war against whomever toppled Assad.  That is something you'd not be OK with, so obviously the West was always damned if it did and damned if it didn't.

As for how much better or worse things would be right now if Iran and Russia didn't prop up Assad is anybody's guess.  Earlier on I think the argument is pretty good that the level of destruction, dislocation, and death would have been much lower.  At least for the short term.

And what this has to so with anything is puzzling.  The uprising against Assad was not Western backed or directed in any meaningful way except the way you claim is acceptable (by example, not by deed).  The repression of that uprising was facilitated by Iran and increasingly Russia.  Since then the West has VERY reluctantly gotten involved and has limited it's attacks to non-Assad forces (thanks to Russia and Iran drawing huge red lines).  With that the mess continues.

6 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

I don't see my responses as flippant or shallow and you haven't said anything to convince me otherwise in the slightest.

Example...

6 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

You are the one that keeps using the moral high ground argument, US is good and Russia is bad, we can support rebellions because we are the good righteous guys and Russia can't because they are world terrorizors.   All I said is that I believe in good and evil, but now Ill add that moral relativism is bunk and immoral.

This isn't what I've said in the least.   Not even close.

Your moral absolutism is the thing that is "bunk".  Russia is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine, you excuse it because nobody else in the world is perfect according to your definition.  Therefore, you are condoning "evil" because everything is "evil".  And you say this from the safety of your "evil" country that is out there doing "evil" to others in your name and never any good.

6 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

Besides you flagrantly putting words in my mouth here, how exactly did you get your number that most "terrorism experts" agree that it is "mostly assads fault"?

I read a lot.  I follow the news daily.  I know how to use the Googles.  Give it a try and you'll probably learn something.

To clarify, though, Assad is more of the catalyst than the root cause.  The root cause is, surprise surprise, the Sunni-Shia conflict as well as the dominance of power between the Middle Eastern states.  Assad merely set the fire and then stoked it to be what it is now.  If it wasn't him it would likely have been someone else down the road.  

18 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

To me I have a very simple and straight forward position and none of you're "attacks" have even been close to hitting let alone denting armour, while I've been staying still rather than dancing.

Which is my point.  Your position is neither logical nor rational, but rather emotional.  When faced with questions which you can't answer you deflect them in the same way someone with a strong religious belief dismisses challenges.  "You can tell me the world is older than 9000 years all you want, but it doesn't do anything to shake my belief".

Here, let me make sure you understand where the problem is.  You believe in only black and white good and evil, right?  The West falls short of that definition therefore it is evil.  Russia also falls short of that definition, so does Assad.  Since there's nothing in between, they are all equal in your eyes.  Yet you live in a Western country that allows you to think like this without persecution.  You don't have secret policeman showing up at night to take you away for questioning.  You don't have mortar rounds from a neighboring country falling down around you.  You aren't in a state of starvation because a country supports the blockade of aid to your town by a hostile government force.  In short, you enjoy all the benefits of living in one of the least bad places on Earth, but somehow in your logic it's no better than being put into a pit filled with your dead family members just before joining them in whatever afterlife might await you.

But if that's what you want to believe, you go right on ahead.  In the country you live in you have the right to believe things without being persecuted in any meaningful way.  You can, by law, have the right to be a hypocrite.

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I've done my part to take this thread way off topic.  Arguing morality with a moral purist is about as productive as arguing religion.  It never goes anywhere useful.

So to get us even a wee bit back on track.  Before the distraction of moral absolutism, the real palatable anxieties that exist in former Soviet states (now protected by NATO) were being discussed.  Poland, in particular, was mentioned.  Even more specifically that Poland has not seen Russia change its tune about aggression westward.  Well, Putin did a nice job of making sure Poland still has a lot to be concerned about:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11213255/Vladimir-Putin-says-there-was-nothing-wrong-with-Soviet-Unions-pact-with-Adolf-Hitlers-Nazi-Germany.html#

The short of it is, Putin continues to try and rewrite history so that it is favorable to him continuing on the Soviet legacy.  Specifically, that there's nothing to be upset about Russia jointly dividing Poland with Nazi Germany because it was what everybody did back then.  That and there was no secret clause to take over Poland and the Baltics.  To his credit, at least Putin acknowledges that Katyn Massacre happened and that the NKVD was the one responsible for the mass murder.  The Russian Communist Party, on the other hand, still denies it. 

This is just another, current, reason to show that Poland have tangible reasons to be uncomfortable next to Russia.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I read a lot.  I follow the news daily.  I know how to use the Googles.  Give it a try and you'll probably learn something.

To clarify, though, Assad is more of the catalyst than the root cause.  The root cause is, surprise surprise, the Sunni-Shia conflict as well as the dominance of power between the Middle Eastern states.  Assad merely set the fire and then stoked it to be what it is now.  If it wasn't him it would likely have been someone else down the road.  

Which is my point.  Your position is neither logical nor rational, but rather emotional.  When faced with questions which you can't answer you deflect them in the same way someone with a strong religious belief dismisses challenges.  "You can tell me the world is older than 9000 years all you want, but it doesn't do anything to shake my belief".

Here, let me make sure you understand where the problem is.  You believe in only black and white good and evil, right?  The West falls short of that definition therefore it is evil.  Russia also falls short of that definition, so does Assad.  Since there's nothing in between, they are all equal in your eyes.  Yet you live in a Western country that allows you to think like this without persecution.  You don't have secret policeman showing up at night to take you away for questioning.  You don't have mortar rounds from a neighboring country falling down around you.  You aren't in a state of starvation because a country supports the blockade of aid to your town by a hostile government force.  In short, you enjoy all the benefits of living in one of the least bad places on Earth, but somehow in your logic it's no better than being put into a pit filled with your dead family members just before joining them in whatever afterlife might await you.

But if that's what you want to believe, you go right on ahead.  In the country you live in you have the right to believe things without being persecuted in any meaningful way.  You can, by law, have the right to be a hypocrite.

Steve

 

In general the "terrorism experts"  in the newspaper and on news tv (if you watch that, seems like you might but no offense intended) are mostly not Arab and as such probably don't have the most appropriate perspective.  My family friend is the most of a middle east expert that I know, he's a middle east studies tenured professor at Cambridge, hes Arab, old, western, been studying it professionally for I guess 40+ years, at least close to that.  He was pretty dismissive of our national coverage of middle eastern affairs.  Pretty much just propaganda. My dad on the other hand reads the paper/ papers every day hes retired so he pretty much does world events and politics with some history all day everyday, and follows the party line hard, just like you. So my dad wanted to argue with the expert about his broad characterizations.    The guy didn't bother because he knew it was a hopeless cause.   Despite being a serious expert on the subjects, newspapers and tv journalists never ask for his perspective.

No I don't believe only in black and white, good and evil.  But I do believe in them and think it's helpful to see the world "as it truly is"  or some such.  A lot of things are neither good or evil, most things in fact, but its useful to recognize the things that do fit into those two categories. 

I don't think the US is evil, I'm so wildly patriotic as to think America is the best thing to ever happen to the world, somehow, despite all the bad things we've done over the years.  Destiny or somesuch.  But that doesn't me the US doesn't do a lot of evil things, big and small. 

I'm opposed to moral relativism not because I see everything in black and white, I don't, I see things as mostly gray and up for interpretation.  I'm opposed to it because like humanitarianism, its just a way to justify things that are on questionable moral ground.  Like us funding the rebellion in Syria. 

I never said the US and Russia were equal as both imperfect and therefor evil, I think neither is evil, they are both nations, and nations are good, they help make civilization (along with some less nice things). 

I never said they were equal in any respect really, although they are equal in many respects (such as both being big powerful nations).

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

No beating around the bush.  The chances of there being a stable regime to replace Assad's even 3-4 years ago, without Assad's compliance, was about near zero.  Western talk and attempts to help would have come to nothing because one can not national build without forces on the ground in total control, which would mean fighting a war against whomever toppled Assad.  That is something you'd not be OK with, so obviously the West was always damned if it did and damned if it didn't.

Yeah its good to inspire people to fight for a better life, but it sounds like you are admitting that it was a basically hopeless military campaign, that had almost no chance to do anything but mess everything up.  In which case I can't see how you are defending us continuing the struggle with our continued support. 

Edited by cool breeze
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firstly, after reading this thread since where I left off:
 

I'm afraid I can't help it.

Dialing it in:

Morality surgically extracted, regardless of what America does anywhere, the question in regards to NATO is:

1. Was there a reason to deny former Warsaw Pact nations entry into NATO?

The only realistic answer here is to prevent antagonizing the Russians.  The question from that though is would not expanding NATO have mattered?  

I would contend not.  Russia's actions indicate that anything short of hegemony over Eastern Europe would be unacceptable (see Russia's actions in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc).  Anything short of that goal would lead to continued threats to peace in Europe.  Logically if you want to preserve this peace, a larger collective defense network is a good idea.

2. Does Russia have a right to it's aspirations in Eastern Europe?

 I would contend not.  Eastern Europe clearly of it's own volition rapidly and forcefully divorced itself from Russia.  Russia's historical actions have not been in line with what's "good" for Eastern Europe.  While Russia has a right to security, it does not have a right to security against a threat that does not really exist (see 3) at the expense of people who have chosen by a large margin to not be Russian aligned.

3. Is NATO a threat to Russia?

As a defensive military alliance, with many different partners all of whom often disagree with each other, it's simply not something that's going on the offensive.  There's no realistic military threat to Russia from the west that doesn't come as a result of Russia starting a war against a NATO partner.  And there's no right to keep your neighbors from defending themselves.


4. Is Russia a threat to Eastern Europe?

Please see Ukraine, Georgia, and other lesser acts of aggression.

Dunno.  You can argue a lot of things, but it's hard to argue NATO had any legal or moral obligation to not expand, or that Eastern European nations have no reason to join NATO, or that Russia's vision of the world is one we should all be required to operate within.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, cool breeze said:

In general the "terrorism experts"  in the newspaper and on news tv (if you watch that, seems like you might but no offense intended) are mostly not Arab and as such probably don't have the most appropriate perspective.  My family friend is the most of a middle east expert that I know, he's a middle east studies tenured professor at Cambridge, hes Arab, old, western, been studying it professionally for I guess 40+ years, at least close to that.  He was pretty dismissive of our national coverage of middle eastern affairs.  Pretty much just propaganda. My dad on the other hand reads the paper/ papers every day hes retired so he pretty much does world events and politics with some history all day everyday, and follows the party line hard, just like you. So my dad wanted to argue with the expert about his broad characterizations.    The guy didn't bother because he knew it was a hopeless cause.   Despite being a serious expert on the subjects, newspapers and tv journalists never ask for his perspective.

So you're saying that because you know one guy that disagrees with the many other experts out there, then the other experts must be wrong?  Experts who are also f Middle East dissent, tenured professors, etc.?  Interesting.

For the record I don't watch TV at all, don't have cable, and don't want either.  TV is for entertainment, which Netflix does better than any.  Though I do miss Frontline.

Quote

No I don't believe only in black and white, good and evil.  But I do believe in them and think it's helpful to see the world "as it truly is"  or some such.  A lot of things are neither good or evil, most things in fact, but its useful to recognize the things that do fit into those two categories. 

You don't seem to want to do the latter, though.

Quote

I don't think the US is evil, I'm so wildly patriotic as to think America is the best thing to ever happen to the world, somehow, despite all the bad things we've done over the years.  Destiny or somesuch.  But that doesn't me the US doesn't do a lot of evil things, big and small. 

Of course the US has done quite a bit of "evil" and comes up way short of its ideals pretty much every day in some way.  As a history guy I can probably out name the US nasty stuff of the 20th Century than most anybody in this thread.  But what that has to do with Russia waging a war of aggression against Ukraine still fails me.

Quote

I'm opposed to moral relativism not because I see everything in black and white, I don't, I see things as mostly gray and up for interpretation.  I'm opposed to it because like humanitarianism, its just a way to justify things that are on questionable moral ground.  Like us funding the rebellion in Syria. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too.  You can not accept that there are shades of gray and up for interpretation, then soundly come down hard in favor of a black and white view.  It simply isn't possible to do and still be intellectually consistent.

Quote

I never said the US and Russia were equal as both imperfect and therefor evil, I think neither is evil, they are both nations, and nations are good, they help make civilization (along with some less nice things). 

I never said they were equal in any respect really, although they are equal in many respects (such as both being big powerful nations).

Then why go out of your way to clearly defend and deflect criticism from an overt war of aggression by Russia with a convoluted, factually flawed argument that somehow it's the West's fault?

Quote

Yeah its good to inspire people to fight for a better life, but it sounds like you are admitting that it was a basically hopeless military campaign, that had almost no chance to do anything but mess everything up.  In which case I can't see how you are defending us continuing the struggle with our continued support. 

Because the mess is spilling out everywhere.  Even if I didn't give a rat's arse about the millions of people being permanently displaced and mentally ruined by this conflict, and everybody expecting the West to pick up the tab for it, there's the whole problem of appeasement.  Or in this setting more like acquiescence.  ISIS exists to fill vacuums and vacuums exist the strongest where Western leadership is weak and indecisive.  Isolationism hasn't been a practical foreign policy for most nations since the 20th Century.  It is even less so now.

That said, I have absolutely no good proposal for how to handle these sorts of vacuum situations.  The only practical way to rebuild a nation is to totally take it over, top to bottom, and implement social, political, and economic reforms which are both in keeping (best that can be) with local beliefs while at the same time cracking down hard on regressive elements.  Over a period of 20-40 years there could be a phased withdrawal based on how well things are going, otherwise it's stay for another 20-40 years if need be.

The West collectively does not have the resources to do this and absolutely nobody would allow them to even if they were so inclined.  Not the Western populace, nor forces opposed to the West, and absolutely not the local thugs who will be displaced by the realignment or are next to the realignment.  Therefore, short to mid term it's hopeless.

The only hope is that long term good people will win out over evil ones in a sort of creeping wave.  There's reason to hope that this can in fact happen, however there's also reason to think that we'll all kill ourselves before it can.  Either way, there's going to be hundreds of millions dead and billions suffering more privation and harm before we see anything even remotely resembling a stable planetary system of governance.  And that's the best case scenario.

In the mean time, the West is the best answer the world has to the pursuit of peace, stability, and respect for Human Rights.  As clumsy and wrong headed as it might be, there's nobody else even trying to set a good example.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

3. Is NATO a threat to Russia?

As a defensive military alliance, with many different partners all of whom often disagree with each other, it's simply not something that's going on the offensive.  There's no realistic military threat to Russia from the west that doesn't come as a result of Russia starting a war against a NATO partner.  And there's no right to keep your neighbors from defending themselves.

I wanted to highlight this one.   Very early on in discussions with Russians about NATO I was asked, point blank, if I thought NATO was an offensive threat to Russia (the implication was that it was).  Even though I do understand this is the official Kremlin line for years, I had kinda hoped that English speaking Russians were not so fooled by this crazy talk.  But sadly, I've found that they often buy into it without any second thought.

Europe as a whole is suspicious that the US wrongly wants to start fights for its own benefit (Russia in particular, but of course Middle East fits in big time).  US, generally speaking, Europe is quick to sell out others or turn a blind eye to military threats then later ask the US to help sort things out (breakup of Yugoslavia being #1, and of course Munich Agreement).  This dynamic makes even defense something that is questionable, not to mention offense.  It gets vastly worse when the internal European politics are examined, which is obviously a mess on even the best of days.

NATO was created for defense.  In it's nearly 70 years it has engaged in only two significant offensive actions.  The first was to finally put an end to the bloody Yugoslav civil war that absolutely was destabilizing Europe and, therefore, a threat to NATO members.  The second was ISAF (Afghanistan) which was in response to a direct attack on a NATO member (the US).  That's it.  The air campaign against Libya was similar to the issue with Yugoslavia, but on a much smaller scale.  That's pretty much it.  No land was annexed or given to a NATO member to control.

Compare this to the Warsaw Pact's 45 years of existence where it crushed a popular revolt in Hungary and then crushed a popular revolt in Czechoslovakia, with the last gasp attempt to crush Lithuanian protests.  Add to this 25 years of Russia grabbing chunks of other countries (in particular Moldova), waging two wars against Chechnya, the war against Georgia, and now the war against Ukraine.  Many pieces of territory were taken from other countries during these conflicts and retained by Russia.

Based on the record, Europe has a lot more real reasons to fear Russia than Russia has to fear NATO.

Steve

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Irishman living in Canada, who marched against Bush War 2,  I am very sensitive to cries of USA GOOD! ALL ELSE EVIL!

I honestly don't see that being shouted out by Steve. He has, repeatedly, stated that the US is NOT a White Hat. And that it's moral status is irrelevant to the discussion - ie Russia's supposedly inherent moral/strategic/ethnic(?) right to foment rebellion in the Donbass as a cover for a destabilizing invasion against a Ukrainian Government attempting to rid itself of Russian infiltration and corruption. 

If anything I find that the US is an internally conflicted Grey Hat, torn between the twin pressures of an overweening corporate-military complex and it's stated moral position as developed from the Constitution and it's fight against Communism. 

Im personally highly suspicious of all politicians,  simply because their drive to stay in power is an inherent warping device on their priorities. I find this to be true across all countries, Russia and US included.

Even Trudeau :-)

Edited by kinophile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This came out a little while ago.  It is a Ukrainian perspective/assessment of the Russian military exercises earlier this month:

https://informnapalm.org/en/analysis-snap-exercise-performed-russian-armed-forces-august-25-till-august-31-2016/#

As I mentioned earlier, it is very clear that Russia views Ukraine as it's number #1 threat which might require military action.  Given that Ukraine could not possibly attack Russia (except for its forces in Donbas) it is pretty clear, conceptually and looking at the exercises, that Russia is ensuring it has the option to invade Ukraine should it decide to do so.  Which, again, indicates that Russia believes in maintaining and even expanding an offensive posture vs. the continued defensive one of NATO.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...