It's always funny ever election cycle since 2016, Democrats and Republicans both start screaming "rigged" if they lose. Neither seeming to see the hypocrisy in their accusation. Probably not a good thing. It's not rigged, but it makes for great theatre to say it is. Unfortunately enough people have started to believe it to a since that it is eroding trust in democracy, which is arguably just as bad.
>The election was plagued with allegations of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. Rumors of illegal road blocks, unclear ballots, and uncounted votes, particularly in swing states like Missouri and Florida, were rampant
I am very jaded about the current administration and also the previous...few...or several? That being said, similar to the Hunter Biden laptop situation, I think you do have to be careful. Sure they -could- have the device or it -could- have been hacked, but what is the proof that the hacked or on-device information wasn't planted among real items to make it appear legitimate? That was always the big if for me with the Hunter stuff, so I will extend the same skepticism here, knowing full well it could definitely be true in either case.
I could understand this for new pages, to crack down on spam, but for established pages? It makes no sense at all. As a cash grab, I get it, but it's not sustainable. Though maybe they are trying to crack down on pages taking over feeds, which I would support...but that would also require them cracking down on the AI slop pictures, etc in feeds.
I think this entire form factor is useless when you have phones and tablets around the house. Will it sell? Probably, it's Apple. Will people use it for anything other than a clock on their counter and maybe a smart speaker? I would bet no.
There have been attacks on Israel long before there was "oppression" of Palestine. You're just making a circular argument, you can say the same thing to justify what Israel is doing. I think saying Hamas is justified is actually grotesque, they also starve the people of Palestine, sell of children and women into sex slavery, intentionally put civilians in just as much harms way. How is doing that justified as a reaction to Israel exactly?
They aren't a Robin Hood like resistance. You're actually just siding with a different oppressor.
Well... arguably it is partially our doing. Not for the reason's Tucker Carlson & Russia say, but that Obama and later Biden totally sat on their laurels after the Crimean invasion, totally paralyzed by fear of escalation and political fallout.
In 2014, there was no political will in the US political system to do anything--witness Obama drawing the red line in Syria over the use of chemical weapons, and after Assad used them, Congress said "fuck off, we don't want to do anything." Given that Crimea was by far the most Russophile portion of Ukraine (it only veeeery barely voted to support Ukrainian independence in the Ukrainian independence referendum), it was much more difficult to build a case for any sort of intervention there than it would be after Syrian war crimes, and the latter wasn't enough to gain sufficient political will.
On top of that, 2014 is the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, which means that all of the foreign policy people had been brushing up on their histories of World War I and the causes of said war, which is of course the ur-example of "random event escalates to every great power at war with each other." I definitely felt like a lone voice pointing out that I was getting more World War II vibes, with Putin acting like Hitler: "I just want a little bit of X, it's the last thing I'll ask for, I promise!"
Also, probably more important than the US reaction here is the German reaction, and Germany was in full Russian appeasement mode really right up until Russian tanks were literally rolling across the border in 2022.
How was Germany in deception mode?
It was Russia that invaded and everybody knew that weeks beforehand. I would hope that politicians had been preparing for that. But how would Germany in 2021 been preparing Russia to invade? Does Putin not have any agency?
It was Russia that prepared for the invasion when they stopped supplying the gas spot market in summer 2021 and later rented gas storage but let it empty. In preparation to blackmail Germany. That didn't work out when Xi did not allow the invasion to start before his winter Olympics ended, though.
As for the Maidan revolution. Yanukovych ran on a pro EU platform with the EU association agreement as a main goal. A few days before signing it he sold out to Putin, declared the agreement dead and called for a custom union with Belarus and Russia. No shit did people go the streets and protested.
How exactly did the US get Yanukovych to renege on his campaign promises and start the protests?
Not even the Russians say that Ukraine started the Donbass war. They are pretty openly celebrating Igor Girkin for starting it with the siege of Sloviansk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Sloviansk
You will have to bring some examples of Germans war preparations. They were completely unprepared for Gazproms hostile actions leading up to the war.
Well, if Yanukovych thought that the EU deal was bad, then he should not have campaigned for it. People voted for him to get them closer to the EU and then he betrayed them.
The Nuland/Pyatt call does not seem particularly damning to me. At that time everybody sought solutions to the political dilemma and the famous "fuck the EU" was only to express the intention to work with the UN instead of the EU, because the EU was slow and divided.
In the Ashton Paet call, Paet only said what he had heard the day before. And it was absolutely true that he had heard that the day before. That does not make the content true and nobody claimed that.
The Micalessin interviews seem pretty obvious fake. Documents with many grammatical errors...
The fascinating thing is that Russians are far more comfortable with their imperialistic role than their western supporter and if you read Russian newspaper/watch television/politician speeches it becomes pretty clear that all this discussion is only for western consumption.
You seem to deny there was deception. Okay. There is coherence in justifying deceptive behaviour in order to defend it.
Girkin aka Strelkov has been in jail for over three years for “extremism”, a phony charge (he was criticizing Putin a lot for bad leadership, and continues to do so from jail). Your stating that “the Russians […] are pretty openly celebrating” him seems inadequate; while he does have supporters, they do not “celebrate” because he didn't succeed as he was left to his own devices and did not receive the Kremlin and (para)military support he was hoping for, so had to abandon Slavyansk to Kiev troops.
The initial attack was the Feb 2014 US-led Maidan massacre and coup d'état. Turchinov started the so-called Anti-Terror Operation on April 7th. Strelkov arrived at Slavyansk on April 12th.
I am not aware of any “hostile actions leading up to the war” by Gazprom.
I don't think Yanukovich “betrayed” his voters more than is typical for any so-called democracy. Also, the majority of them were in the Eastern and South-Eastern parts historically close to Russia.
Nuland/Pyatt were discussing whom to appoint to lead the country, proving the USA was behind the coup d'état. The “fuck the EU” bit is of minor importance and just shows US attitude to EU or EU member states' interests, which is perfectly known anyway.
Paet himself had no doubts about the factfulness of what he was relating to Ashton (because he trusted the politically like-minded MD Olga Bogomolets† he'd spoken to, see 49764198=dead), and he was worried (“really disturbing”) that he was on board with something that was against his very own convictions, that is perfectly clear from the tone of his voice. And there is plenty of corroborating evidence, which the CIA/MI6-backed “new coalition” (the perps) chose to ignore, such as videos of people being hit allowing to reconstruct the snipers' position. Avakov etc even had the trees with the bullets in them cut down to destroy the forensic evidence that proved where the shots had been fired from.
† https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olha_Bohomolets – She encouraged her students to take part in the Maidan protests, received honors and positions, ran for president (but no mention of what she revealed to Paet).
I don't know what grammar errors you're referring to, but some of the snipers were interviewed in person, there's a documentary (watched it a couple years ago so don't remember any “grammar errors”):
The Russian propaganda you're referring to is for internal consumption, of course they are in cope mode and try to instill confidence in their own population because their situation is very difficult and their leadership showed amazing incompetence in assessing the situation prior to the Feb 2022 invasion, and sent in their troops with guidelines for a “special military operation” (which they reckoned it would be, a matter of days) and not for the deadly war it turned out to be.
Russian incompetence of stupidly marching into the trap, however, does not vindicate the other side, led by the US and the UK, who laid out the trap in the first place, in an elaborate strategic threat and deception involving, among other things, a “con game” to encourage the Kremlin into taking an action it wouldn't have dared to take. The US and their vassals who also invested into this operation sought precisely this kind of war with Ukrainians/Russians on both sides paying with their blood in order for the profit to flow to the US (in order to MAGA) by draining Europe (Germany being the main loser, of course).
Being clever certainly helps in being a war-profiteering bloodsucker, but it doesn't make it any better.
It is my impression that you are dismissing clear evidence, thus showing little interest in an honest debate, rather displaying your allegiance to the Western narrative (a kind of “virtue signaling”), which I think you adhere to because that's psychosocially comfortable.
Crimea isn't just Russophilic, the majority of the population even before 2014 were ethnic Russians, the majority language was Russian, and it was part of Russia until 1954.
People who make a big point about "Crimea is Ukraine!" are either ignorant or ideological, objectively it's at best debatable.
(And really, there should be no slavs there at all and it should be given back to the Tatars, if anyone really wants to get into the morals...)
My point is the 1991 borders are somewhat arbitrary: they were originally internal administrative divisions inside a larger centralised state.
They don't necessarily represent a natural long term international border, and attaching huge moral significance to the specific strokes of a Soviet bureaucrat's pen is strange
Many borders are arbitrary. The moral significance results when nations go full 1900 with land grabbing invasion and all that psuedohistorical ethnic bullshit. I urge you to read the soviet propaganda for the winter war or that of the nazis and the Sudetendeutschen. It is not distinguishable from the drivel that Putin spouts.
Where they attacked because they wanted in on NATO, or the reverse?
"I need to attack Ukraine because you're trying to get it into NATO, at which point attacking it is impossible/much harder." ~Putin, probably
NATO can be criticized for a lot, Afghanistan for example, but despite hearing the argument that Russia attacking Ukraine is NATOs fault, it's never been coherent.
They weren't attacked before trying to join NATO, if that's what you mean. It goes back to 2003 at least. In 2008, Germany blocked both countries' NATO bids because they considered it aggressive against Russia.
It's not just that Putin knew it'd be harder to attack NATO, but it was a clear signal of non-neutrality where they were previously neutral. Even if Germany would've repeatedly blocked their entry to NATO, both countries were aligning with it.
I still don't follow. Is the assertion that the non-"neutrality" of NATO membership/alignment would mean a direct threat to Russia somehow? Because the only coherent read I can make is that the only honest objection would be that Russia would lose their ability to attack Ukraine, as well as Ukraine probably growing better resistance to vassal influence, as seen in Georgia.
It's all circular reasoning trying to claim otherwise. "Neutrality" would be letting Ukraine fend for it self while Russia aggressively attacks their elections and implants stooges, which I frankly find absurd. Do I believe the US does something similar less crudely? Yes. Do I believe the EU or any other NATO member does? Hardly.
Aside from the defense agreement, NATO has implications for weapons, foreign bases, intelligence, and cooperation in wars. And all of them are exclusive, like Turkey got kicked out of the F-35 program for purchasing S-400s. Putting that in two countries bordering Russia would be leverage. USA would likewise not respond nicely to Mexico joining CSTO (well also if CSTO weren't a joke).
Sure, I understand the reasoning if we assume that Russia is only reactive, US is doing it out of expansionism, and Ukraine is entirely persuadable. I disagree with all those assumptions (in context).
The question isn't why the US wants something, or why Russia wants something, it's why Ukraine wanted/wants to join NATO/EU. If you believe that's purely from US/west pressure, then agree to disagree I guess, but I'm trying to be persuaded it's not because of constant Russian aggression going back decades.
I'm assuming both Russia and US had imperialist goals. Ukraine did in fact start trying to join NATO because of vague Russian threats over Crimea all the way back in the 90s. I still think the US escalated things by pursuing such strong Ukraine-NATO cooperation, especially after 2008. I'm not even complaining about US imperialism in general here, it's just that the US overestimated its limits and may have misled Ukraine.
Yes Ukraine had their own agency, but the two empires' diplomacy matters more, which is unfortunately just how the world works. Plenty of countries would want to join NATO if assured protection, but they didn't, and that's why there isn't now a proxy war everywhere Russia (or China) has influence. The empires figured out where to draw the line in a way that angers neither side too much.
Not sure why exactly Georgia left CSTO and started aligning with NATO in 1999. Seems they realized CSTO was a joke because it wasn't actually protecting their territory from separatist movements. Led to Russia invading Georgia while NATO gave up on it. Similar thing happened in Armenia more recently, where we've yet to see how it plays out; seems like Russia is too busy with Ukraine right now.
Russian security thinking is largely shaped by the invasions of Napoleon and Hitler, which caused terrible destruction. The biggest thing they are afraid of is an invasion from the west. That led to a doctrine, where Russia tries to surround itself with allies and puppets. When the next invasion comes, they can then start fighting against it well outside Russian territory, which should limit the damage to Russia itself.
Under that doctrine, if you are a European country bordering Russia, your duty is to help defending Russia. You can choose whether you do that as an ally or a puppet, but you are not allowed to make any other choices.
That's not reasonable fear, given what Europe became after WW2, but it's what Russian leaders expect. Especially those of Putin's generation, who spent their early lives preparing for a possible NATO invasion that could start WW3.
Finland and the USSR had a defensive treaty that, among other things, obligated Finland to fight against NATO if it tried to use Finnish territory or airspace to attack the USSR. There was also a Soviet military base near Helsinki that was supposed to be there until 1994. But after Khrushchev rose to power, the Soviets decided to return it for a number of reasons.
After the USSR fell, Finland deliberately stayed out of NATO in order to maintain a good relationship with Russia. Because the popular support for NATO membership was very low, Russia apparently believed Finnish intentions. Even in late 2021, only ~25% of Finns supported joining NATO. (Six months later, that number was ~75%.)
arguably and partially, perhaps a bit, but they have history to back up that reluctance.
That said, Putin's gonna do what Putin's gonna do and it likely wasn't the Crimean invasion that prompted it. It was the promise of waltzing in and just taking it without resistance.
Supporting Ukraine in Crimea would have been the right thing to do but in 2014 the US was extremely war weary. Despite his dovishness with Russia, conservatives still love to claim Obama was a war monger.
If you want to claim the Biden administration rested on its laurels in 2022, you were either not paying attention or are not participating in good faith.
It's actually shocking that so many comments don't know that the biggest draw -by far- happened under the Biden administration largely as a result of the Ukrainian War. In 2020 when the SPR wasn't full and oil was literally negative, Congress blocked the administration from buying oil to fill it. Instead they used the SPR for short term storage for oil companies (which was not the administration's original proposal.)
I get the Iran war part (though the bigger issue there is middle distillerates rather then crude atm), but people were screaming about the SPR drawdown, and lack of buying for 4 years before Trump ever got back into office; and it fell completely on deaf ears.
the oil oligarchs lose political control the bigger the reserves are. By emptying it, they have guaranteed their political power not just on Trump but for years to come
> lack of buying for 4 years before Trump ever got back into office; and it fell completely on deaf ears.
So Jan 2021-Feb 2022 Biden didn't top up the SPR, something that definitely makes sense given the fiscal situation.
From Feb 2022 onwards, oil prices spiked because Russia invaded Ukraine. People started putting stupid "I did this" stickers on gas pumps and Biden drew from the SPR when it was nowhere near empty.
Trump doesn't refill it, with both houses of Congress, then starts a war with a nation who every military analyst knows could close a huge oil passageway.
I cancelled Disney+ years ago, am grandfathered into a Spotify/Hulu combo package, and I cancelled ESPN+ after they stopped their Bundesliga coverage. I haven't seen a Disney film in ages, part of me wonders how this company survives outside of nostalgia and college football.
reply