Current Events > Tucker Carlson tweets in defense of Putin.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sad_Face posted...

When it comes to politics, you have to test the whataboutism scenarios where your adversary is in the position of power. You don't want to set a precedent that you only feel comfortable with when the conditions favors you.

Are you of the opinion Russia will leave Ukraine?

Because if keeping NATO out is all they wanted why stick around or annex it?

Robot2600 posted...

you seem to be proving exactly my point so, yes. he is supposed to do all of those things.

Was my post not blatantly sarcastic enough?

Sad_Face posted...

When it comes to politics, you have to test the whataboutism scenarios where your adversary is in the position of power. You don't want to set a precedent that you only feel comfortable with when the conditions favors you.

Whatsboutism on the level of Homefront video games is and will always be fiction. This simply will not happen unless the USA is already thoroughly destroyed through civil war in which case the hypothetical changes entirely.

To first begin to create an analogous situation of Ukraine / Russia to America / Mexico, you must first start with the events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union which created the current political map in the first place.

Until that happens, there's no point in discussing China invading by Mexican proxy as it's pure fiction. And if a USSR style collapse does happen to America it's unknown what the borders of the country will be at that point. Alaska / Texas may go off on their own.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Whatsboutism on the level of Homefront video games is and will always be fiction. This simply will not happen unless the USA is already thoroughly destroyed through civil war in which case the hypothetical changes entirely.

To first begin to create an analogous situation of Ukraine / Russia to America / Mexico, you must first start with the events leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union which created the current political map in the first place.

Until that happens, there's no point in discussing China invading by Mexican proxy as it's pure fiction. And if a USSR style collapse does happen to America it's unknown what the borders of the country will be at that point. Alaska / Texas may go off on their own.

I think he knows that but he has to try something to justify Putin's stupidity.

WingsOfGood posted...

Are you of the opinion Russia will leave Ukraine?

Because if keeping NATO out is all they wanted why stick around or annex it?

If the US and NATO came to an agreement with Russia that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, the US will no longer sell arms to Ukraine, but Russia must recognize Ukraine as an independent sovereign state, I want to say yes, they would leave Ukraine alone, based on the knowledge I have of the situation.

Tyranthraxus posted...

Until that happens, there's no point in discussing China invading by Mexican proxy as it's pure fiction. And if a USSR style collapse does happen to America it's unknown what the borders of the country will be at that point. Alaska / Texas may go off on their own.

Whataboutism in politics isn't about "whether or not it's possible to happen", it's about making sure no precedent is set so if by some chance an adversary gets the better of you, they don't have any extra incentive to proverbially twist the knife on you. Your post makes no sense.

And even then, China stated that they want to have the kind of influence the US has on the world. They've been cracking down on making sure their citizens act productively to the point where they've banned kids from playing videogames for several hours straight a day. They've been working with Russia on an alternative to the SWIFT payment system for over 4 years now. The sanctions on Russia is a golden opportunity for China to flex their new payment system to bypass sanctions and is garnering interest from other countries and mind you, 80% of the US dollars in existence were printed in the past 2 years and the US dollar is a world reserve currency where no one has the ability to defy and get away with defying in the past almost 80 years since the inception of the Breton Woods conference in the 1940's through rebrand of the petrodollar in the early 1970's. If the Chinese government had the opportunity to invade through Mexico and it was beneficial to their goals of becoming the most influential country in the world, you bet your ass they'd take it.

Sad_Face posted...

Whataboutism in politics isn't about "whether or not it's possible to happen", it's about making sure no precedent is set so if by some chance an adversary gets the better of you, they don't have any extra incentive to proverbially twist the knife on you. Your post makes no sense.

If the last 10 years have taught us anything it's that precedent means fuck all anymore. Even treaties barely mean anything anymore. We've spent the past 40 fucking years taking turns backstabbing the sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, offering them support in the fight against each other and then bailing on them.

We spent the past 80 fucking years trying to police the world usage of nuclear technology despite being the only ones to ever use the fucking shit to kill people.

If you think 20 years from now someone in China is going to be like "Well I could invade America but 20 years ago they didn't do anything to help Ukraine so I'll just leave them alone" then you're out of your mind.

Sad_Face posted...

If the US and NATO came to an agreement with Russia that Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, the US will no longer sell arms to Ukraine, but Russia must recognize Ukraine as an independent sovereign state, I want to say yes, they would leave Ukraine alone, based on the knowledge I have of the situation.

Then I must say you have very little knowledge of the situation.
This would mean Ukraine still hard turned off the water to Crimea and Russia could not use the oil pipleline built when Ukraine was part of the USSR to deliver oil to Russia.

You apparently also do not know that Putin does not recognize Ukraine as a country and has stated it is part of Russia. Nor is this something he is willing to do.

Tyranthraxus posted...

If the last 10 years have taught us anything it's that precedent means f*** all anymore. Even treaties barely mean anything anymore. We've spent the past 40 f***ing years taking turns backstabbing the sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, offering them support in the fight against each other and then bailing on them.

We spent the past 80 f***ing years trying to police the world usage of nuclear technology despite being the only ones to ever use the f***ing s*** to kill people.

If you think 20 years from now someone in China is going to be like "Well I could invade America but 20 years ago they didn't do anything to help Ukraine so I'll just leave them alone" then you're out of your mind.

When it comes to the US, our reputation is in the gutter when it comes to basically anywhere outside of NATO as we've set the precedent far lower than most people realize. But that doesn't negate the golden rule of politics, consider the whataboutism before you advocate or enforce some law before it blows up in your face.

WingsOfGood posted...

This would mean Ukraine still hard turned off the water to Crimea and Russia could not use the oil pipleline built when Ukraine was part of the USSR to deliver oil to Russia.

Alright, then they can bring this onto the table. If you want to do a gatcha on me, you're doing a poor job because you keep blowing off the implications of NATO's condition of allied forces aiding a country in a war and the fact that the US would be installing military bases at Russia's border. You keep acting as if Russia should ignore it when I could point to the Ukraine's conflict of 2014 and what escalated it.

Sad_Face posted...

You keep acting as if Russia should ignore it when I could point to the Ukraine's conflict of 2014 and what escalated it.

I would be curious what your take on the 2014 conflict is.

Sad_Face posted...

You keep acting as if Russia should ignore it

It's literally none of Russia's business if Ukraine wants to enter NATO. Ukraine is a sovereign nation; Russia doesn't get to decide who the Ukrainians ally with.

Putin is a frightened man-child who doesn't know how to play nice with others and has delusions of grandeur.

Gotta protect his ad revenue stream.

None of Russias business if Ukraine enters NATO xD . Considering it's on their border and Putin thinks Russians and Ukrainians are the same , I can think of few things he would consider More his business.

I'm genuinely surprised at how many people don't think NATO is an antagonizing entity to Putin. He's said it himself so many times.

Think of it from a nuclear angle. Like we were talking about Cuba , let's go to the bay of pigs incident. The US didn't want Russian influence in our hemisphere , and didn't want missile and troop bases in Cuba. We didn't just act like it was no big deal because Cuba wasn't going to invade us anyways. Likewise acting like Russia should be totally fine with being pressed by American allied countries that we install missiles and troops in is Naive.

In their eyes , it's still partially a cold war. They still are competing with us , they still think of us as somewhat of an enemy or adversary at least. The mistake I see in some posters logic is they don't understand how seriously Russia takes itself and how much they don't trust us.

Keith_Valentine posted...

None of Russias business if Ukraine enters NATO xD . Considering it's on their border and Putin thinks Russians and Ukrainians are the same , I can think of few things he would consider More his business.

I'm genuinely surprised at how many people don't think NATO is an antagonizing entity to Putin. He's said it himself so many times.

Think of it from a nuclear angle. Like we were talking about Cuba , let's go to the bay of pigs incident. The US didn't want Russian influence in our hemisphere , and didn't want missile and troop bases in Cuba. We didn't just act like it was no big deal because Cuba wasn't going to invade us anyways. Likewise acting like Russia should be totally fine with being pressed by American allied countries that we install missiles and troops in is Naive.

In their eyes , it's still partially a cold war. They still are competing with us , they still think of us as somewhat of an enemy or adversary at least. The mistake I see in some posters logic is they don't understand how seriously Russia takes itself and how much they don't trust us.

Don't want your neighbors running to NATO? Be a fucking better neighbor.

Keith_Valentine posted...

Think of it from a nuclear angle. Like we were talking about Cuba , let's go to the bay of pigs incident. The US didn't want Russian influence in our hemisphere , and didn't want missile and troop bases in Cuba. We didn't just act like it was no big deal because Cuba wasn't going to invade us anyways. Likewise acting like Russia should be totally fine with being pressed by American allied countries that we install missiles and troops in is Naive.

In their eyes , it's still partially a cold war. They still are competing with us , they still think of us as somewhat of an enemy or adversary at least. The mistake I see in some posters logic is they don't understand how seriously Russia takes itself and how much they don't trust us.

Cold War is over. That was not only a different time for Russia but the USA as well.

For example, when it ended, USA went to Russia and made businesses there. Something that never would happened before. If you want to pretend it never ended you are going to have alot of issues because that is frankly provably an idiotic take.

Putin thinks it is threat only because Putin wants to expand his border - something he also has said btw and you keep ignoring.

You're ignoring the fact that during their initial Soviet expansion we didn't go to war because he took Hungary or any of those other countries. So why should we now?

And I don't think the "cold war" is over to Putin. Do you? It only ended because they collapsed.

NATO offers war guarantees. So all these people cheering for us to allow Ukraine to join NATO , if we do that and Russia acts up , now we have to go to war. That's why Trump was saying NATO needs to be reevaluated. Relying on NATO also lulled Europe into their current state where they are unable to defend themselves because they expect us to kick everyone ass.

Keith defending Russia and his favorite Russian puppets. Must be a day that ends in y.

Keith_Valentine posted...

And I don't think the "cold war" is over to Putin. Do you? It only ended because they collapsed.

It was. He may have recently restarted it however. That is on him though.

For example, why do you think freezing Oligarch assets in USA and Europe is even a thing? It is because there is no Cold War or these countries wouldn't even think about letting stuff like that happen. Similar, lots of Americans invested quite a bit into Russia as well.

"We are at war with this other country but it is ok to let them buy up properties and install business in our country."
That is illogical. Think harder about the propaganda you read.

Deals like this for instance had existed until just a few days ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/business/economy/russia-trade-status-us.html

The move to strip Russia of its preferential trade status would allow some of its biggest trading partners to impose higher tariffs on Russian goods. The Group of 7 countries, which also include Canada, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Japan, purchased about half of Russias exports in 2019.

Russias preferential trade status is conveyed by its membership in the World Trade Organization, whose rules require that all members grant each other most favored nation trading status in which goods can flow between countries at lower tariff rates.

COVxy posted...

Keith defending Russia and his favorite Russian puppets. Must be a day that ends in y.

There's nothing I've said that defends Russia. I thought you were smarter than the typical reactionary

Unless you're offended by my comments on NATO expansion , which if you like I can direct you to the foreign policy experts whose articles I read to come to that view?

I haven't said one word praising Russia , praising Putin , downplaying the violence , or excusing it. I gave my take on why it happened and how it could have been avoided

tucker carlson

That was it for me.

WingsOfGood posted...

It was. He may have recently restarted it however. That is on him though.

For example, why do you think freezing Oligarch assets in USA and Europe is even a thing? It is because there is no Cold War or these countries wouldn't even think about letting stuff like that happen. Similar, lots of Americans invested quite a bit into Russia as well.

"We are at war with this other country but it is ok to let them buy up properties and install business in our country."
That is illogical. Think harder about the propaganda you read.

Deals like this for instance had existed until just a few days ago.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/11/business/economy/russia-trade-status-us.html

This post tells me you don't understand how a cold war works. You think just because we do business , we are friends? That's a frenemy situation. And Russia's actions make it obvious the cold war was not over to them , and it probably won't be for a very long time. I wonder if pushing our victorious NATO forces into their territory had anything to do with their sour grapes

Keith_Valentine posted...

There's nothing I've said that defends Russia. I thought you were smarter than the typical reactionary

"PuTiN hAs LeGiTiMaTe ReAsOnS tO bE sCaReD oF NaTo!"

That is defending Russia. If your argument is Putin sees it a different way, well buddy that means Putin is very stupid and should be removed from office.

Also your comment about the Cold War never ending is very Putin-revisionist.
You only say this because Putin had tried to interfere with a USA election and now is doing what he is doing now.

But...why would a guy NOT defending Putin be spouting Putin bullet points and wanting people to see through Putin's eyes?

sus

WingsOfGood posted...

Cold War is over. That was not only a different time for Russia but the USA as well.

For example, when it ended, USA went to Russia and made businesses there. Something that never would happened before. If you want to pretend it never ended you are going to have alot of issues because that is frankly provably an idiotic take.

Putin thinks it is threat only because Putin wants to expand his border - something he also has said btw and you keep ignoring.

It's actually crazy to see all of that fall apart. The McDonald's set up right after the fall of the Berlin wall has now been closed.

If anything though, I would rather think the point of it all is that Russia(or rather just, Putin) thinks that it(he) is in a cold war again. Thinking that it's vying for power in the world as true competition for the USA as a top world power or something. Almost as if he thought he could revive the soviet union or something.

Sad_Face posted...

You keep acting as if Russia should ignore it

Whatever other countries do with their foreign policy or alliances is none of Russias fucking business.

Keith_Valentine posted...

This post tells me you don't understand how a cold war works. You think just because we do business , we are friends? That's a frenemy situation. And Russia's actions make it obvious the cold war was not over to them , and it probably won't be for a very long time. I wonder if pushing our victorious NATO forces into their territory had anything to do with their sour grapes

It appears you need to take a history class. You don't do business with a country you are at war with. Cold War is infact a real war fyi.

In 1948, the United States began a campaign of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union that would last more than fifty years. In March of that year, the Department of Commerce announced restrictions on exports to the Soviet Union and its European allies. Congress formalized these restrictions in the Export Control Act of 1949. Originally, Congress intended this act as a temporary measure to keep arms and strategic materials out of the hands of potential enemies, but the outbreak of the Korean War in 1950 made the Cold War more rigid and the measure became permanent. In 1951, the United States attempted to strengthen these sanctions with the so-called Battle Act. According to this act, the United States would refuse assistance to any nation that did not embargo strategic goods, including oil, to the Soviet Union and nations subject to its influence. Under pressure from its allies, the United States accepted many exemptions from this act and it was not notably effective.

For many years, the embargo on the Soviet Union was quite severe. The embargo on Eastern European countries was less stringent, in hopes of driving a wedge between the Soviet Union and its allies. Two of the most independent East European nations, Poland and Romania, were given particularly mild treatment. With the growing dtente of the 1970s, trade restrictions on the Soviet Union and its allies were increasingly lightened, most notably in the permission granted the Soviets to purchase large amounts of American wheat when Soviet crops failed in 1973. But restrictions were tightened again after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979. In 1983, Ronald Reagan approved the National Security Decision Directive 75, which set the policy of using economic pressure to limit the foreign policy and military options of the Soviets. This stricter regime of sanctions led to considerable conflict with America's allies on the Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (COCOM), especially over the export of oil and gas equipment.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a major debate broke out over the contribution that the campaign of economic sanctions had made toward the fall of the Soviet empire. Many former officials in the Reagan administration credited sanctions with a significant role in the disintegration of the Soviet economy and therefore of the Soviet Union itself. On the other hand, the leading work on the effectiveness of economic sanctionsHufbauer, Schott, and Elliott, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered (vol. 1, p. 137)concludes that although the United States did succeed in denying some arms and key technologies to the Soviets, the collapse stemmed from internal inefficiencies rather than U.S. economic sanctions.

https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Embargoes-and-Sanctions-Cold-war-sanctions.html

There sure are a lot of missing posts

WingsOfGood posted...

"PuTiN hAs LeGiTiMaTe ReAsOnS tO bE sCaReD oF NaTo!"

That is defending Russia. If your argument is Putin sees it a different way, well buddy that means Putin is very stupid and should be removed from office.

Also your comment about the Cold War never ending is very Putin-revisionist.
You only say this because Putin had tried to interfere with a USA election and now is doing what he is doing now.

But...why would a guy NOT defending Putin be spouting Putin bullet points and wanting people to see through Putin's eyes?

sus

This is just getting stupid , I thought we moved past the petty, sarcastic mockery. If you don't think anything I say has merit , fine , no reason to talk with you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Then be ready to go to war with a nuclear power. I expect to see you on the front lines. You want to stop Putin so bad , go do it. We never stopped the Soviets when they grabbed everything before but now we're gonna start world war 3 , ok. Because that's what NATO guarantees , that's how the previous world wars started .

Oh yea , Conflict probably marked that so hard he broke his finger

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


If Russia is just taking countries , then they are bound to move on to NATO countries because they are surrounded by them and "Biden is weak". Or if we let Ukraine in like some are advocating. Is your solution to just let everyone in NATO and have more war guarantees?

So you said , if they are in NATO they are safe. What keeps them safe , the threat that the US will go to war. So you better be ready to fight if you think all those things together with NATO expansion isn't really a big deal.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I'm not mad , I can just tell you're petty and get off on marking people

Keith_Valentine posted...

This is just getting stupid , I thought we moved past the petty, sarcastic mockery. If you don't think anything I say has merit , fine , no reason to talk with you.

Perhaps you should just admit to being on Russian's side if you don't want mockery. You cannot espouse this propaganda and say "but I am not for Russia."

Also, my reason to talk to you is because the only way to counter propaganda is to face it head on no matter how ridiculous it is at times. For example Russia is literally claiming right now to not have invaded Ukraine.
Of course, they say this because they never saw Ukraine as another country but always their own land. You can't invade your own land.

Knowing this, you should then be able to figure out why the notion that Russia just didn't want NATO in Ukraine is nonsense. You are literally claiming over and over that NATO at the BORDER of Russia is a huge threat.
But Russia doesn't see a border between them and Ukraine. Russia actually is saying they already own the land some call Ukraine. Therefore NATO by their own standard is already at their border. It has been for years.

Now you have to come to terms that Russia will want all NATO countries bordering Ukraine (which Russia claims is just their own border) to leave NATO.
And you will go back to the same logic trap that you were at with Ukraine.
Poland should leave NATO because it scares Putin and forces him to invade? That being Poland is at the border of Russia since Ukraine is illegitimate and part of Russia by Putin own words.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Your logic is Russia wishes to expand. Mine is they want their territories back that are on their border now, maybe more down the line. Namely Belarus , Georgia , and ukraine.

We let the Soviet union do what it was doing before , what's the difference now? Is that something we have to get involved with , and do we get involved everytime something u just happens? Further I specifically said Joe was doing a good job , along with Trump , of sending weapons and support. Where the fuck is the Putin support?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Blah blah blah

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


And so the argument that NATO should not be at Russia's border which these people who claim to not defend Russia put forth
now shifts to countries like Poland who are in NATO now.

They should leave would have to be the logical conclusion if that argument had merit. So will Keith argue this?

I wonder which topic will get Keith suspended this time, this one or the Naomi Osaka one?

Keith_Valentine posted...

Mine is they want their territories back that are on their border now, maybe more down the line. Namely Belarus , Georgia , and ukraine.

We let the Soviet union do what it was doing before , what's the difference now? Is that something we have to get involved with , and do we get involved everytime something u just happens?

To clarify, you are not defending or pro-Russian?

You still claim this?

Keith_Valentine posted...

There's nothing I've said that defends Russia. I thought you were smarter than the typical reactionary

You still claim this after saying they can just take all the former USSR territories cause why not?

I can see 12 of the 42 posts on this page of the topic

he is no longer active user

Won't Russia want to expand even further than the old Soviet territories if they are allowed to just reclaim sovereign nations? I mean, NATO will still be on their borders.

Maybe we should just let them have Europe so that NATO is an ocean away.

Edit: LOL banned

hockeybub89 posted...

Won't Russia want to expand even further than the old Soviet territories if they are allowed to just reclaim sovereign nations? I mean, NATO will still be on their borders.

Maybe we should just let them have Europe so that NATO is an ocean away.

Edit: LOL banned

I believe the people saying Russia should just be allowed to take what they want infact do want Europe taken over by Russia because they see Russia as conservative and Europe as liberal.

This is the sentiment of my family member who says this same bs. This isn't my first time arguing with it.

This article is an interesting read in the context of the argument taking place ITT:
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-business-syria-europe-aed781f59cc4c792f4c6ecdc2541b141?

Russian footholds in Mideast, Africa raise threat to NATO
Russian President Vladimir Putins invasion of Ukraine dominates world attention. But with less global scrutiny, Putin is also busy advancing Russias presence in the Middle East and Africa -- an expansion that military and civilian leaders view as another, if less immediate, threat to security in the West.

Putins strategy in the Mideast and Africa has been simple, and successful: He seeks out security alliances with autocrats, coup leaders, and others who have been spurned or neglected by the U.S. and Europe, either because of their bloody abuses or because of competing Western strategic interests.

Especially in the last five or six years, what youve seen is a Russia that is much more expeditionary and casting its military power further and wider afield, retired U.S. Gen. Philip M. Breedlove told The Associated Press.

Russia is trying to show itself as a great power, as at the seat in world affairs, as driving international situations, said Breedlove, the top NATO commander from 2013 through 2016, and now a distinguished chair at the Middle East Institute think tank in Washington.

But with Putins hands already full battling the fierce resistance from a much weaker Ukrainian military, experts view his expansionist goals in the Middle East and Africa as a potential long-term threat, not a present danger to Europe or the NATO alliance.

Its threatening NATO from below, Kristina Kausch, a European security expert at the German Marshall Fund think-tank, said of the leverage Russia is gaining. The Russians have felt encircled by NATO and now they want to encircle NATO, she said.

To achieve its strategic aims, Russia provides conventional military or Kremlin-allied mercenaries to protect the regimes of often outcast leaders. In return, these leaders pay back Russia in several ways: cash or natural resources, influence in their affairs, and staging grounds for Russian fighters.
These alliances help advance Putins ambitions of returning Russias influence to its old Cold War boundaries.

Russias new security partnerships also aid it diplomatically. When the U.N. General Assembly condemned Putins Ukraine invasion this month, Syria joined Russia in voting against, and many of the African governments that have signed security deals with Russian mercenaries abstained.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday that Russia would bring recruits from Syria to fight in Ukraine. The threat was seen primarily as an intimidation tactic and U.S. officials say theres been no sign of Syrian recruits in Ukraine. Some security experts say Russian mercenaries are using Mali as a staging ground for deployment to Ukraine, but U.S. officials have not confirmed these reports.

Regardless of how imminent the threat is, U.S. and European leaders are paying increasing attention to Putins moves in the Middle East and Africa and Russias growing alliance with China as it formulates plans to protect the West from future aggression.

It's one thing to say that Russia shouldn't treat NATO expansion as a threat, but we treat their agreements and alliances with countries like Mali and Sudan that aren't particularly close to even Western Europe as one.

The Wagner Group has been running wild in Africa committing all sorts of crimes against humanity. I hope they're dying as painfully in Ukraine right now as they possibly can.

Intro2Logic posted...

It's one thing to say that Russia shouldn't treat NATO expansion as a threat, but we treat their agreements and alliances with countries like Mali and Sudan that aren't particularly close to even Western Europe as one.

Because Russia actively makes threats and invades territories unprovoked. They're much, much more aggressive than any NATO country. Russia literally has no reason to fear a NATO invasion of Russian territory, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that Russian invasions are a definite threat to world stability.

They're 100% the bad guys here. There is no conceivable twist of rhetoric that can make Russia seem like a victim.