The Ukraine war thread

[jon-nyc]

@Doctor-Phibes said in The Ukraine war thread

My self-appointed mainstream viewpoint speaking on behalf of the silent majority as I do, is that the person who won that argument was Vladimir Putin.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

Everyone is gonna post-hoc rationalize the way they wanna.

I agree with you that this will play well with Trump supporters, because they couldn’t care less about Ukraine.

To be clear, you think there is a categorical difference between you and Trump supporters, in that you have compassion for beset upon other countries, while they don't?

If we take Vice President BetaFace at his word, then yes.

[Horace]

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

Everyone is gonna post-hoc rationalize the way they wanna.

I agree with you that this will play well with Trump supporters, because they couldn’t care less about Ukraine.

To be clear, you think there is a categorical difference between you and Trump supporters, in that you have compassion for beset upon other countries, while they don't? And your compassion leads you unerringly to the truth that America should deploy its military to correct such unfair situations in the world?

No - we came up with a system after WW2 where we really took the helm on guiding global geo-politics.

I grew up in that framework.

I have no particular compassion for Ukrainians as humans, as bad as that is to say. Because that would be hypocritical. I don’t really take much time out of my day to think about wars in Africa.

But - I thought I knew the rules of the game. We live in a society. We all live by social rules.

The US payed a lot to be in the position that it’s been in, but it’s also gotten a lot of benefits (this is the best country in the world and many people here don’t appreciate that at all)

This is already getting really wordy. But I liked that social order and America’s place in it. Others don’t and I can respect that. Trump hasn’t outlined any new doctrine clearly about America’s place in the world. I wish he would - because I suspect his ideals aren’t the same as mine.

If nothing else is obvious, I hope that it's at least obvious that there were no clear rules and playbook that America and NATO should have followed here, with nuclear conflict looming as a possible result of any pat virtue answers about thwarting imperialistic aggression.

[jon-nyc]

What part of that argument wouldn’t apply if he invaded Poland? Or Finland? Or Germany?

[xenon]

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

Everyone is gonna post-hoc rationalize the way they wanna.

I agree with you that this will play well with Trump supporters, because they couldn’t care less about Ukraine.

To be clear, you think there is a categorical difference between you and Trump supporters, in that you have compassion for beset upon other countries, while they don't? And your compassion leads you unerringly to the truth that America should deploy its military to correct such unfair situations in the world?

No - we came up with a system after WW2 where we really took the helm on guiding global geo-politics.

I grew up in that framework.

I have no particular compassion for Ukrainians as humans, as bad as that is to say. Because that would be hypocritical. I don’t really take much time out of my day to think about wars in Africa.

But - I thought I knew the rules of the game. We live in a society. We all live by social rules.

The US payed a lot to be in the position that it’s been in, but it’s also gotten a lot of benefits (this is the best country in the world and many people here don’t appreciate that at all)

This is already getting really wordy. But I liked that social order and America’s place in it. Others don’t and I can respect that. Trump hasn’t outlined any new doctrine clearly about America’s place in the world. I wish he would - because I suspect his ideals aren’t the same as mine.

If nothing else is obvious, I hope that it's at least obvious that there were no clear rules and playbook that America and NATO should have followed here, with nuclear conflict looming as a possible result of any pat virtue answers about thwarting imperialistic aggression.

I continue to believe that the only way to actually reduce danger of annihilation in the long term is to have and live up to a set of values that we would like the rest of the world to.

Else it’s just purely power that rules at the end of the day - so many the left was right after all.

I’m realize this is a very Pollyanna POV

[Horace]

The argument you're referring to has the advantage of not positing an obvious playbook. Therefore I don't have to generalize that obvious playbook.

[Horace]

@xenon It's an unactionable point of view, unless you come right out and say, yes, escalate. Which is fine. Just say it, and stop hiding behind the "values" rhetoric.

Then you can have some skin in the game as, inevitably, the world tilts, at least just a little bit, towards nuclear conflict. See how it feels to have some skin in that game. This virtue rhetoric is too easy.

[xenon]

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon It's an unactionable point of view, unless you come right out and say, yes, escalate. Which is fine. Just say it, and stop hiding behind the "values" rhetoric.

Then you can have some skin in the game as, inevitably, the world tilts, at least just a little bit, towards nuclear conflict. See how it feels to have some skin in that game. This virtue rhetoric is too easy.

What’s the unactionable part? You arm Ukrainians until they no longer want to fight. We’ve been doing that for the last few years.

[Mik]

Skin, certainly, but I think it pretty clear that Putin is not going to start a nuclear war over Ukraine.

[Horace]

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon It's an unactionable point of view, unless you come right out and say, yes, escalate. Which is fine. Just say it, and stop hiding behind the "values" rhetoric.

Then you can have some skin in the game as, inevitably, the world tilts, at least just a little bit, towards nuclear conflict. See how it feels to have some skin in that game. This virtue rhetoric is too easy.

What’s the unactionable part? You arm Ukrainians until they no longer want to fight. We’ve been doing that for the last few years.

Now we're just going in circles. That ends with Russia in Kiev.

[xenon]

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon said in The Ukraine war thread:

@Horace said in The Ukraine war thread:

@xenon It's an unactionable point of view, unless you come right out and say, yes, escalate. Which is fine. Just say it, and stop hiding behind the "values" rhetoric.

Then you can have some skin in the game as, inevitably, the world tilts, at least just a little bit, towards nuclear conflict. See how it feels to have some skin in that game. This virtue rhetoric is too easy.

What’s the unactionable part? You arm Ukrainians until they no longer want to fight. We’ve been doing that for the last few years.

Now we're just going in circles. That ends with Russia in Kiev.

As a thoroughly depleted husk of itself, militarily. They’re going to end up there anyways if we don’t do anything.

But they’re our top 2 adversary. Isn’t it good for us if they’re weak. Plus they understand the cost of what it took (probably not worth it for them).

Might be half a trillion in the long run, but we spent like $20T on Afghanistan for way worse outcomes than we’ve already got here. I’m willing to chip my taxes in for that.

In the long run everyone can wean themselves off of them economically. Seems better than this.

[Horace]

@xenon Fair enough. I appreciate the fully fledged opinion. If Trump can expedite some sort of negotiated peace before that happens, where Ukraine keeps its sovereignty, it will be a win compared to that.

[Horace]

Sam Harris weighs in:

That was a mortifying spectacle in the Oval Office today. We witnessed President Trump acting like a handmaiden to a Russian dictator, while processing everything—US foreign policy, world history, the fate of millions—through the lens of his own grandiosity, pettiness, and personal grievances. Trump is siding with a man who has all but threatened us with nuclear annihilation over our support for an independent Ukraine. Putin's troops have routinely subjected Ukrainian POWs to torture. They have stolen tens of thousands of Ukrainian children and repatriated them to Russia. And we now have President and Vice President who blame the victims for all the misery and death that has been imposed on them (and for not saying “thank you” when they do this). Where do we go to get our country's moral stature back?

[jon-nyc]

Which of his sentences do you disagree with?

[Renauda]

Have now watched and listened to the exchange a few more times. Firstly, Zelenskyi ought not to have been using English, he should have resorted to either Ukrainian or his mother tongue, Russian. By using English he came across as lecturing Vance on Putin’s duplicity and perfidy in diplomacy. Vance was triggered. Trump in his capacity as host and chair, failed utterly to bring his VP into line, calm the waves and bring the meeting to an immediate end.

As pointed out Putin is the sole winner of the day and now probably the war.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in The Ukraine war thread:

Which of his sentences do you disagree with?

Sam's not here to defend himself, so I am honor bound not to respond.

[Horace]

The white house canceled the planned joint press conference between Trump and Zelensky.

[LuFins Dad]

So… No mineral deal?

[LuFins Dad]

[AndyD]

To Republicans:

Is this the Commander in Chief you voted for, or has he turned out to be something very different to your expectations?