Ukraine

[Decourcy]

Somehow, in sandtown’s mind, “Russia shouldn’t have invaded” becomes “I love war and death”

He can claim that “because you believe X, you must believe Y” but these are so far apart it’s like saying “because you like chocolate ice cream, you are anti abortion”

Sorry no, illogical arguments used in a logical fashion are still illogical. People with various mental conditions do it all the time.

[johnw]

Sandtown prefers to argue against the points he’s decided someone made, rather than the points actually made. Sorry wi-Tom, you’re being far too charitable.
He’s so off topic with his responses at times I wonder whether he’s actually read anything. Well, I guess it’s on-topic for him. The only topic being “but what about what some other foreign power did in the past. It’s worse than Russia now”

That's pretty much what Wi-Tom does as well. If he attacks you for things you haven't said, and you defend yourself, he claims you are being dishonest and you really said what he claims you said, not what you actually said. They are pretty much two peas in a pod in that respect.

I don't think Sandtown even values peace. When I tried to engage him on what peace negotiations might look like, he dodged and weaved and sometimes just ignored the question. All he cares about it denouncing America and all its works, the notion that any other country could have done something wrong is too foreign to be entertained. Trying to look at things from Ukraine's perspective is beyond him. He can only see Ukraine as a catspaw of the illuminati, or the borg, or the military industrial complex, or whatever. The notion that Ukraine and Russia might have some agency is beyond his ken.

[sandtown]

This awful conflict is not about any of us . . .

My views are widely shared, as are those of the more pro-war faction here.

People of good will all over the world are trying to figure a way out of this.

Another good essay here . . . https://www.theamericanconservative....ither-ukraine/

WWI style slow moving fronts with 21st century weapons simply means both sides will bleed out.

I cannot imagine that anyone here wants that.

[heimlaga]

I do not sympathize with any of them. How about you ??

Why do you then spend this much effort defending what isessentially their agenda?

Namely the idea that Russia is somehow good and right whatever it does to it's own people and other because is serves some sort of metaphysic "nation" where the people isn't really involved.
And the idea that it is right and fair that democratic decisions made by the people in smaller countries should be overridden by the dictator of the nearest superpower. That small nations are unable to make politics of their own without being someone's puppet.

Personally I see nothing good in those right wing ideologies nor in the communism of olden days.

[Nicholas Carey]

WWI style slow moving fronts with 21st century weapons simply means both sides will bleed out.

I cannot imagine that anyone here wants that.

Nobody wants that.

That is, however, a creation of one man's making -- Vladimir Putin.

Only he can end it. Unless you can posit some diplomatic outcome that doesn't involve Ukraine surrendering its sovereignty, territorial integrity, or political independence, and becoming a vassal/slave state to Putin's Imperial Russia Redux: Russia has no claims on Ukraine whatsoever, exclusive of Putin's fevered psychoses, and Ukraine owes Russia nothing.

if you have such an idea, perhaps you should share them with Ukraine or Russia.

[sandtown]

For sure, Ukr is very important, but is there some ethno-thing going on that leads folks to pretty much ignore other awful conflicts ???

https://www.commondreams.org/news/20...ers-resolution

[JayInOz]

No, but the thread is about Ukraine.

[dutchpp]

The ISW Russian offensive campaign assessment, December 7.
https://www.understandingwar.org/bac...ent-december-7

Key Takeaways

• Russian President Vladimir Putin is setting conditions for a protracted war of conquest in Ukraine.
• Putin is using Russia’s Human Rights Council to consolidate power while rejecting principles of international human rights law.
• NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg made comments supporting ISW’s previous assessments that an operational pause in the winter of 2022-2023 would favor Russia.
• Russian forces used Shahed-136 drones in Ukraine for the first time in three weeks.
• Russian efforts to pressure Belarus into joining the war in Ukraine may be causing friction in the Belarusian military.
• Russian forces are likely increasing the pace of their counterattacks in eastern Kharkiv and western Luhansk Oblast.
• Russian forces continued offensive operations in the Bakhmut and Avdiivka-Donetsk City areas.
• Russian forces continued defensive operations and the reorientation of their forces in eastern Kherson Oblast.
• Independent Russian media sources indicated that mobilization efforts will continue despite statements from Russian officials to the contrary.
• Russian occupation authorities are likely transforming Mariupol, Donetsk Oblast, into a rear military and logistics base for Russian forces.

[WX]

I see this quite a bit differently. I don't think sandtown misunderstands what anyone is saying. I think he sees implications in what people say that people prefer not to acknowledge. I read his comments as falling essentially along these lines: "When you say this, ___________ is also implied, and __________ is a logical conclusion to that line of thinking. And those implications and logical conclusions are bad. So you're really giving your approval to something bad."

I think the WBF (well, the Bilge) has built itself a habit of resisting anyone who questions the implications of what posters say. The accusation of "straw man" or complaints that some posters "misrepresent what I said" get used as an evasive maneuver--a tactic that allows people to avoid confronting the potential implications and subtexts of what they say. People get defensive about how "I never said that!" and fail to consider honestly that, when they said X, yes, it might be reasonable for someone to understand Y and Z as natural accompaniments to X.

Conversely, people might address the logic of linking X to Y and Z, and explain why they think Y and Z do not follow from X. But in the end, some people will see links to Y and Z, and some will not. It's not useful or charitable to attack someone who sees it differently.

So when sandtown--or me, or anyone--responds to things that people think they haven't said, that's probably true. But it's not a strawman. It's not misrepresenting anything. It is demonstrating how, when you say X, some people sincerely see that Y and Z go along with it. And that, if you don't agree with Y and Z, you might want to reconsider your commitment to X as well.

Instead, most people get defensive, shut down, and start accusing others of "straw man" and "misrepresenting" etc. etc. ad nauseam. And things then escalate to the kind of rhetoric we're seeing on this thread.

And that's a shame. Because sandtown is bringing a perspective that is worthy of discussion. And the people sandtown is engaging with are asking crucial tough questions and pointing out key weaknesses in sandtown's positions. But neither is able to engage with the other.

Tom

I'm trying but he keeps reading stuff into my comments that just aren't there. The political history of international diplomacy, alliances, and warfare is incredibly complex.
In the First World War Italy and Japan were good guys, but in the Second World War they were the enemy.

[gypsie]

#7498, it's worth following the link. Very interesting manoeuvres taking place. Chess pieces moving around, preparing for the next gambit.

[WI-Tom]

sandtown prefers to argue against the points he’s decided someone made, rather than the points actually made.

That's pretty much what Wi-Tom does as well. If he attacks you for things you haven't said, and you defend yourself, he claims you are being dishonest and you really said what he claims you said, not what you actually said. They are pretty much two peas in a pod in that respect.

It is certainly convenient to believe that, john. But with great respect (not snark), I think the truth is closer to this:

I think the WBF (well, the Bilge) has built itself a habit of resisting anyone who questions the implications of what posters say. The accusation of "straw man" or complaints that some posters "misrepresent what I said" get used as an evasive maneuver--a tactic that allows people to avoid confronting the potential implications and subtexts of what they say. People get defensive about how "I never said that!" and fail to consider honestly that, when they said X, yes, it might be reasonable for someone to understand Y and Z as natural accompaniments to X.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Somehow, in sandtown’s mind, “Russia shouldn’t have invaded” becomes “I love war and death”

That's obviously an egregious mischaracterization. But I doubt even sandtown actually believes it. It's overheated, hyperbolic rhetoric, and it's a big part of the opposition he has brought on himself.

Tom

[George Jung]

Perhaps. But no doubt, 'reading more into it' is a common ploy, one allowing the instigator to direct the discussion along their own agenda.

[WI-Tom]

Perhaps. But no doubt, 'reading more into it' is a common ploy, one allowing the instigator to direct the discussion along their own agenda.

Sometimes. At other times, "reading more into it" can mean perceiving some of the implications and subtexts that inevitably accompany explicit statements (intentionally or not), and drawing attention to the fact that when you say X, it's plausible to argue that Y and Z follow even though you didn't actually say Y and Z.

Doing that is not a personal attack. And it's not a "straw man" or a "rephrasing" or a "mischaracterization."

Shouting "Straw man!" is also a common ploy, after all. An evasive maneuver. A misdirection. You know, one allowing the accuser to direct the discussion along their own agenda.

Tom

[George Jung]

Sometimes. Not everyone see's things the same, right? And not everyone is honest. It's a gray scale.

[L.W. Baxter]

This awful conflict is not about any of us . . .

My views are widely shared, as are those of the more pro-war faction here.

People of good will all over the world are trying to figure a way out of this.

Another good essay here . . . https://www.theamericanconservative....ither-ukraine/

WWI style slow moving fronts with 21st century weapons simply means both sides will bleed out.

I cannot imagine that anyone here wants that.

funny thing, you take one musing from general milley about prospects for ukraine's victory and the advisability of seeking a treaty, and presume that milley is your philosophical soul mate. i tell you that i support milley's statement of the biden administrations official position on support for ukraine and deference to their decision making, and you tell me--you tell me-- that i "disagree" with milley.

i got news for you. you and i are far better philosophically aligned than are you and milley. where we are disaligned is in a practical reality we can share.

[sandtown]

funny thing, you take one musing from general milley .

Nope, it is not "one musing" - he has made that point repeatedly.

[lupussonic]

Sandtown, I don't often comment here, but I read this thread every day. I am sick to death of you making this thread about you. Please desist.

Do you remember marching on parade? When you marched out of step with everybody else, did you honestly think you were the only one marching in time??

People are dying, being raped, suffering hunger and extreme cold. THAT is what this thread is about.

Not you.

[johnw]

#7498, it's worth following the link. Very interesting manoeuvres taking place. Chess pieces moving around, preparing for the next gambit.

Yes, it looks like Putin is setting in for the long haul. At this point, it's hard to see how Russia turns to peace with him in power.

[johnw]

Sandtown, I don't often comment here, but I read this thread every day. I am sick to death of you making this thread about you. Please desist.

Do you remember marching on parade? When you marched out of step with everybody else, did you honestly think you were the only one marching in time??

People are dying, being raped, suffering hunger and extreme cold. THAT is what this thread is about.

Not you.

The information to noise ratio improves considerably if you put certain people on ignore.

[Osborne Russell]

Somehow, in sandtown’s mind, “Russia shouldn’t have invaded” becomes “I love war and death”.

Followed by "I know this because you won't grant that Russia is entitled to something on account of their wrongful invasion. It shows you to be an anti-negotiation war-monger."

[johnw]

I'm trying but he keeps reading stuff into my comments that just aren't there. The political history of international diplomacy, alliances, and warfare is incredibly complex.
In the First World War Italy and Japan were good guys, but in the Second World War they were the enemy.

This style of rhetoric has an academic history. Essentially, when someone left of you tells you what you actually mean, and you tell them that's not what you meant, you are doing so because you just don't understand or your consciousness is so grounded in the power structure that you can't see the truth.

The main champion of the style was this guy:

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

More on his philosophy here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decons...ing_to_Derrida

Many still worship Derrida, and I can never keep his books on the shelf in my little used bookstore, but some pretty prominent people consider his work pseudophilosopy. Noam Chomsky, for example, said this:

"I found the scholarship appalling, based on pathetic misreading; and the argument, such as it was, failed to come close to the kinds of standards I've been familiar with since virtually childhood. Well, maybe I missed something: could be, but suspicions remain, as noted."^[161]

Derrida famously said deconstruction was not a method, a critique, or an analysis, apparently trying to make it impossible to rebut him on his own terms. If you simply look at what this kind of rhetoric does, it moves the power over the meaning of a text from the speaker to the critic, unless that critic is trying to criticize Derrida or his followers.

People who adopt this kind of sophistry think they are being wise and that their position is unassailable, but others generally find them shallow and annoying.

[George Jung]

People who adopt this kind of sophistry think they are being wise and that their position is unassailable, but others generally find them shallow and annoying.

Time for roll-call!

Vlad? You here?

Sandy?

Buehler?

[sandtown]

, and it's a big part of the opposition he has brought on himself.

Oh Bull Pucky. When I post the views of war skeptics, whose numbers are legion . . . I get personal attacks and nasty name-calling.

What is happening here is a full-on assault on anyone who disagrees in the slightest with the dominant narrative.

I got the same crap when I protested against Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan, Iraq and more.

I was right in each and every one of those cases, and y'all were wrong.

Maybe you don't want a civil exchange of views because in your hearts you know you are wrong.

[George Jung]

No. No. That's not it.

Try again. Or don't. That might be better!

[WI-Tom]

Oh Bull Pucky. When I post the views of war skeptics, whose numbers are legion . . . I get personal attacks and nasty name-calling.

What is happening here is a full-on assault on anyone who disagrees in the slightest with the dominant narrative.

I got the same crap when I protested against Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan, Iraq and more.

I was right in each and every one of those cases, and y'all were wrong.

Maybe you don't want a civil exchange of views because in your hearts you know you are wrong.

Have you noticed that I'm the closest thing you have to an ally on this thread? And that I've been perfectly civil? To the point of everyone else saying I'm being "too charitable"?

And that I've said I thought it would be worthwhile to think about whether the West's approach to Russia has contributed to making Russia what it is?

I'll point out that it's pretty arrogant to say "y'all were wrong" when you don't even know what my stance on any of those conflicts was. Or how much time I spent protesting Afghanistan and Iraq? (Yes, I missed Vietnam. I was 3 when the U.S. left).

Might want to re-think your "strategy" of attack-attack-attack there, sandtown.

Tom

[Nicholas Carey]

Willing to bet that most of the folks here opposed "Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan, Iraq and more". I know that that's true about the latter two — we discussed those topics here, at length.

[George Jung]

Tom, ya thought ya had an allie, a like-minded friend. I don't believe Sandy does 'friend'.

[Garret]

Tom, ya thought ya had an ally, a like-minded friend. I don't believe Sandy does 'friend'.

He seems to be able to do friendly on other threads, but chooses not to here.

However, I'm with Martin. I wish this side chatter would go away & let this thread get back to being the excellent source of news on Ukraine it's been.

[George Jung]

It could - but only if everyone resists troll efforts at diversion. It's *almost* as if that's their aim.

[Garret]

It could - but only if everyone resists troll efforts at diversion. It's *almost* as if that's their aim.

Almost...

I've resisted so far - something I'm not normally known for.

[Garth Jones]

The latest from Stephan Korshak:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/d...s-f655a249a437

[Nicholas Carey]

This twitter is interesting: Russia's On Fire.

It's a daily feed containing video of Russian infrastructure getting burning and/or blowed up.

Apparently a lot of careless smokers in Russia.

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

There is a lot going on in the tanker market just now…

[gypsie]

The latest from Stephan Korshak:

https://medium.com/@Stefan.Korshak/d...s-f655a249a437

the boss of Uzbekistan yesterday said that Tashkent will not, repeat not, join a proposed natural gas export consortium with Russia.
Why should they, when the Russians on the way to quitting the European market. And with people as varied as the Quataris, Uzbeks, and Americans all conspiring to grab market share in Europe, how is the Kremlin going to recover that lost income?

Will any western country buy Russian oil again if they have a choice?
There's lost income and there's future income.

It'll be a generation at best before Russians can be part of the civilised world order again.