My understanding is that the State Dept has been working on this--quietly, so as not to make her into a high profile pawn--but that Russia just isn't interested. I was stunned at the sentence, but I have to assume they're asking for things we just can't concede (eg stop arming Ukraine).
Of course it's possible they aren't working it as hard as they could be, and I'm sure they'd be working at least a bit harder if there were more/louder coverage.
The thing with more coverage is it makes her a more valuable hostage.
Huh, that's an difficult paradox.
1.1 There were reports that we offered to exchange Viktor Bout for Griner and Paul Whelan. If Whelan wasn't a spy (and it seems likely he wasn't, but I don't know) that's a very generous offer. But apparently Russia's not interested.
It's not completely obvious to me that Russia is doing this for leverage. She did commit a crime, and Russia is an awful place with a shitty court system, and lots of racist and homophobic people. They might just being doing this because that's how they treat foreigners who commit crimes. Either way it's awful and horrifying, but Russia is an awful and horrifying place now. I don't know if the WNBA could have done more to educate their players better about foreign travel. (I know a lot of people blame the WNBA for not paying enough, but the main issue here is that the WNBA season doesn't match up with the European season, because the WNBA doesn't want to compete with the NBA. Any time that happens you see people playing in both the US and Europe. See Jordan Morris and Paul Arriola at Swansea, or Landon Donovan at Everton.)
There are other Americans imprisoned in Russia for similar charges.
I don't do it for the fame.
6: Fine, I feel bad for their families, too.
It's beyond obvious that Russia is doing this for leverage. The nominal sentence for her crime, even granting the generous assumption that a crime did take place, is measured in months.
My read is that they were intending to drive a wedge between Biden and Black Americans, particularly women, while giving the white supremacist international coalition something to cheer about/mock/troll with.
Griner committed a crime. That's not an assumption. But yeah, the incentives for Russia here are all in favor of keeping her locked up.
6: Here's an article about one of them https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2022/07/28/marc-fogel-teacher-russia-prison/
He got a 14-year sentence for prescribed marijuana.
He's local, so it's been covered lots.
Griner committed a crime. That's not an assumption.
Given the state of Russia, that it wasn't planted - whether by high-level agents of the state or by customs workers envisioning a bribe - is an assumption, if a reasonable one.
Neither Griner nor anyone who represents her has cast doubt on her possessing the cartridges in violation of the law, and Russia has released video of the search of her luggage at the Moscow airport.
I suppose you can theorize that everyone representing Griner was, in effect, under duress, and that Russia faked the video -- but nobody has actually offered any evidence of fakery or even made the accusation, as best as I can reckon. Griner's own explanation -- that this was a mistake on her part -- seems much more plausible.
The stupid brutality of the Russians is hard to reconcile with the romanticization of Russia by some of my fellow white people: "They're just so soulful! So real and authentic! Not fake like Americans."
It's not completely obvious to me that Russia is doing this for leverage. She did commit a crime, and Russia is an awful place with a shitty court system, and lots of racist and homophobic people.
Even if Griner had been a straight white American man, she would still be facing a very long prison sentence in horrible conditions. Marc Fogel fits all those conditions, and he's a 61-year-old invalid with a chronic spinal condition, and he had prescription cannabis for medicinal reasons rather than just because he liked to get high - and he got 14 years in a labour camp (where he will probably die) to Griner's nine. So, no, it probably isn't because she's black or gay or a woman.
It almost certainly is because she's American - and therefore a useful hostage to exchange for concessions. A national of a less important country or a Russian national would certainly have received a lighter sentence. Both Fogel and Griner received sentences that were wildly in excess of the maxima laid down by Russian law for cannabis possession, which are 3 years for Fogel, and 15 days for Griner (who had a smaller amount on her).
Like China, Russia has the advantage here that it doesn't actually give a shit about its own citizens, and is therefore immune to hostage-taking as a policy tool. Maybe they could be swapped for some Russian POWs in Ukraine?
Correction: Griner's cannabis was also prescription, not recreational, so ignore that.
The moral of the story is that no American should go to Russia baring official business (like diplomatic business). Given what China is doing to Canadian nationals (and Chinese people), I don't think I'd go there either, but the level is risk is probably lower than Russia by quite a bit.
The moral of the story is that if you're selfless enough to boycott countries with histories of hostage-taking and horrific abuses in their prison camps, not only will you be doing the morally right thing (albeit at the cost of your lucrative side hustle with the Ekaterinburg Katyushas or whatever) but you will also be materially reducing your chance of being locked up as a hostage in a horrifically abusive prison camp.
Yeah, I don't think we're in a position where yell louder/try harder is going to yield anything in the short run.
We can't foment a coup in Russia, and if we did the result would likely be even worse. Wouldn't it be great, though, if somehow there was a change in leadership and policy?
It's awful and unjust but my probably unpopular opinion is no way do I want the US government to trade Viktor Bout for Griner. Dude has a helluva lot of blood on his hands *Alex klaxon*
I don't know what the Institute for the Study of War's track record on this kind of thing is, but they've been reporting frequently on Yevgeniy Prigozhin, "Putin's chef", doing things that look like building up an independent base of personalized power that could turn into more if things get more unstable within Russia. And he gives the impression of being if anything worse than Putin - race to the bottom in fomenting bloodlust.
Before you sentence someone to prison on flimsy charges of possession, make absolutely sure they aren't well-connected. So it goes.
22: nor do I, for a multitude of reasons, although getting US citizens out of Russia has obviously taken on much more urgency, especially after that Zambian student guy turned up dead in uniform and in Ukraine. Realistically, he's a busted flush, but the idea of him getting his seat in the Duma is galling and it's obviously worth something to VVP to put people like Lugovoi in parliament or he wouldn't do it.
And it was Chichakli who actually threatened me in blog comments, not the man himself
23. If Putin can't settle differences between his MoD and private Russian actors. then Putin is weakening. Prigozhin is not just quietly putting people in place (basically normal defensive behavior) but also is making public pronouncements against Shoigu.
Should it be necessary to justify the ways of God to men, Prigozhin and the Wagner group constitute a sufficient justification for Hell.
It's just opera, but not in Italian like good opera.
24. ajay makes a useful point about Marc Fogel, but whataboutism is an entirely reasonable response, too. If you want to talk about black women and other people being abused by drug laws, you don't have to travel to Russia for that.
In my youth, I spent a significant amount of my time stoned, and was always sad not to travel with marijuana, but I had the goddam sense not to take pot into an airport.
I ain't victim-blaming here. Griner still isn't at fault in the big picture. But believing that she is subject to some peculiar kind of abuse is a mistake.
22, 26: And yeah, the moral calculus about this sort of thing is more complicated than people like to admit. I still want them to swap Bout for Griner if that offer becomes available, but I understand that there are compelling reasons to disagree.
31: no, whataboutism is not. Letting Griner rot doesn't help the guy in 24 in any way, does it? Similarly, getting really outraged about 24 does nothing for Griner, just as getting outraged about Griner doesn't help 24 either. You either need to get outraged about both, or pick the one you think you can be more effectively outraged about.
In fact, very interestingly, whataboutism here leads to the conclusion of doing nothing about either of them while being annoyingly smug and sanctimonious, which is why people object to it.
18: State's page for travel warnings gives a "Do Not Travel and Leave Immediately" for Russia.
I still get security updates from the US embassy there, but the country has been at Level 4 (Do Not Travel) for quite a while -- I'm not sure they ever had it lifted since the outbreak of coronia -- so I didn't notice when they went to GTFO.
On the other hand American Chamber of Commerce in Russia is still doing events, so I guess people are there. Anglo-American School of Moscow seems to have a regular school year going, and the staff names on the public-facing web site are not noticeably Russian. It's got to be a weird and worrying time there.
On the other other hand, Swiss diplomatic friends say that their work has basically come to a standstill. Russian counterparts don't want to meet with foreigners (and who can really blame them), so there's a lot less that can be done. Even if you're studiedly neutral. They also said that there are a lot of vacancies in the compound (old GDR diplomatic compound, renovated to Western standards) where I used to live.
33: I guess "whataboutism" implies a defense of Russian policy or a defense of US inaction in the face of Russian policy, so that might be a poor word choice on my part. But I do think it's useful to remember that this sort of tragedy isn't unusual and ought to be discouraged everywhere, as the linked piece suggests.
My workplace is pretty Russian. Nobody is traveling back anymore to visit family.
They're apparently press-ganging men from public transit, and doing random stops with phone inspections to check for anti-Putin expression on social media.
Seems unsustainably grim.
Historically, Russia is really good at sustaining grim.
23: my impression is that ISW is pretty reliable on events on the ground in Ukraine and its tac-op level forecasts have been good. This is pol-strat level stuff that involves a lot of reading tealeaves about what is happening in Moscow, but it doesn't seem unreasonable.
Prigozhin's rise is a good thing from the west's point of view. There's no "friendly Russia" option available here. It's either "unified relatively strong hostile Russia", "defeated impotent hostile Russia" or "divided fratricidal hostile Russia", just like it's always been - if we make the mistake of thinking that "strong friendly Russia" is an option, we will get our faces ripped off, just like Matun in the poem.
33: Literally none of those options can do anything. Russia can do what they want, there's nothing any of us can do about it. It's frustrating, but it's true. Maybe you can raise one of them to the level of "worth offering an exchange for Viktor Bout," but that didn't work, and there's not anything else we can do that's reasonable.
Neither Griner nor anyone who represents her has cast doubt on her possessing the cartridges in violation of the law
When negotiating for clemency from a hostile power, it's generally best not to accuse them of subverting the law, no matter what the truth may be.
OK then. What happened to Griner has happened over and over again in the USduring the last 50+ years or so. It happens less now but it hasn't stopped happening. But when it happens in Russia it proves (in accordance with American foreign policy) that Putin is the current evilest man in history.
This does not justify Putin but gives you a sense of proportion, in the same way that comparing Iran and Saudi Arabia gives you something to think about when you know that the US is allied with Saudi Arabia against Iran (and Yemen, and various other victims of the Saudis)..
+/- 40,000 arrests isn't shocking news, but 2 sentencings is. Many of those 40,000 were acquitted or received sentences thought lenient (though there still can be lifelong effects). But more than 2 of the 40000 received severe sentences.
https://www.lastprisonerproject.org/cannabis-prisoner-scale
Generally speaking, the people in the United States who are "pro-Putin" are just fine with the United States locking up minority group members for small amounts of marijuana possession and are actively trying to create the circumstances where it happens more often in the United States. And those pro-Putin people are sufficiently friendly with Saudi Arabia that the Saudis deliberately boosted the price of gasoline in an attempt to influence the U.S. election in favor of their preferred candidates.
It isn't about being pro Putin, as I think you know any more than opposing the Libya, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or (eventual) Iran wars was/is/will be about supporting Khaddafi, whoever it was in Somalia, Saddam, the Taliban, Assad or whoever it will be in Iran. The aim now is regime replacement in Russia with the Ukrainian proxies paying the cost, and Putin's replacement will likely be worse than him. Ukraine will be devastated; it was already the poorest country in Europe the whole war is being fought on their soil, and there's little or no chance that the shaky NATO powers will be able to restore Ukraine.
After the fact I suppose we'll regret this war too when we see what happens in Ukraine. Nothing will ever be learned.
Don't think that I'm unaware that people in the US who agree with me are often some of the worst. I didn't make my mind up by surveying American publkic opinion. It just shows me that have no place to go in this country.
But Britney Griner is the most important thing, not anyone else in jail and not what happens in Ukraine.
We may regret it, but to call the Ukrainian army proxies of the United States is pure Russian propaganda. As is the idea that the U.S. goal was regime replacement in Russia before this started.
No it isn't. Whatever Ukraine was before the invasion it became a Russian proxy not long after. It wasn't their choice. They have no chance of winning without NATO help (intelligence money and supplies) and that came because the war fit American plans, and it came with strings attached. There have been several reports of ultimatums given to Zelensky who is fully aware of his dependence.
There's only one group that can be happy about this war right now, and probably ever: American war planners. I have seen at least one of them I thanking the Ukrainians for the sacrifices they were making for freedom (i.e., for NATO and the US). Doing the job for us.
Ukraine made a free choice, repeatedly, to try to maintain some independence from Russia. There were votes, protests, massive demonstrations. People were getting killed for this for years. They kept this up even during the Trump years when U.S. policy was not friendly. They knew the had little chance of winning without help, so they sought help. The United States and NATO have interests in many things beyond Ukraine, so they put limits on the assistance they have provided.
There are lots of independence movements and we ignore most of them. There was an independence movement in E Ukraine which we ignored. And people will deny this but the Ukrainians were encouraged with hopes and promises. Because they were going to do the job for us.
" The United States and NATO have interests in many things beyond Ukraine, so they put limits on the assistance they have provided." How is that not a proxy? Ukraine will also be heavily indebted after the war is over.
I am wiling to bet that you could eat every Ukrainian that "Mr Whatabout" has spoken to this year and not spoil your appetite for dinner.
There was an independence movement in E Ukraine which we ignored.
Russian behavior in E Ukraine was bad enough that it doesn't really exist anymore.
49: I don't like most Slavic food, unless you count perogie. I can't tell a Ukrainian from a Russian, but there are lots of people walking around my neighborhood speaking what sounds like Russian to me. Just walking around like I am for the exercise, or emptying their dog, but talking on the phone or with another person in Russian. In 2020, everyone who told me to fuck off when canvasing for Biden had a Russian accent.
That is correct. I haven't based my opinion of what I know about Russia or the Ukraine, much less personal contact. It's about my understanding of American foreign policy.
The idea that we were dangerously provoking Russia was utterly mainstream as little as 2 years ago, but as soon as anything happened everyone fell into line like they always do. What good will come of it for anyone other than American military planners?
I have lost at least half my internet friends on this issue, but none of them have convinced me that they understand what's happening. I believe that a year or two from now my point of view will be better understood, but only for this one case, not for any future cases. As most of you have presumably guessed, I am a lurker who use to be very happy here. When I found that almost everyone here was taking American foreign policy at face value, while making occasional objections, I had to quit.
My guess is that Russia will be neutralized (our goal), Ukraine will be forgotten, and our conflict with China will heat up. Something like this has been our long term approach, to look for a new enemy whenever we don't have one until no one is left. There are people who openly support that plan and others who do so covertly, and it will be American foreign policy until it isn't. There's no opposition within the political system and very little public opposition: the Ukaraine invasion was really sweet for those guys.
If someone thinks that's a generally good thing, they have nothing to worry about. Iran comes after China, or maybe Venezuela.
I don't disagree that it was much more common to worry about the dangers of provoking Russia two years ago, but it's not that "anything happened." It's that what happened, Russia's invasion was massive and aggressive and brutal beyond what most people were expecting, that many people quite reasonably decided that "not provoking" wasn't an option switched to being concerned about deterring Russia.
52 is at least impressively honest. "Their opinions don't matter. It's all about us."
Anyway, I'm not worried about the United States heating up a conflict with China. I'm worried about China. I think it's pretty obvious they are looking for a moment way to take the ROC and their treatment of the Uyghurs is easily the actual worst evil happening right now.
Mr Whatabout should be pleased to know that he has my mother's full and complete support for his positions on Ukraine. Which means probably also Bob McManus's.
In general, sure, I am right with you thinking that war is generally bad and shouldn't be encouraged. But where you've got a functioning country minding its own business that gets invaded without justification by a neighbor, I can't see any argument either that they're wrong to resist or that anyone else is wrong to help them resist.
Ukraine needs us, and they make demands on us.. They are one of the 200+ countries in the world which are not the US and we have no mutual aid treaty with them, partly because they had their own insurgent problem.
They are one of dozens of countries, movement, and minority groups which have been treated brutally during recent decades, sometimes by us or our allies and just as often by third parties or enemies. If you think that Russia is being remarkably brutal you're just ignorant. They fit into our plans and that's why they're important. And maybe because they're white Christians.
I expect the American war party to remain unchallenged during the remainder of my life. This was like pennies from heaven for them. And as long as the war party remains in command, civilian needs wil be neglected, keeping the American population the most miserable in the developed word. War is never in the We Cannot Afford zone.
The Ukrainians' positions about what they do should be decisive for them, not their opinions about what we should do.
56: OK you're OK with American foreign and military policy in general. I'm not sure you know what it is, but never mind.
"it's not that "anything happened." It's that what happened". What happened exactly what was feared.
58.2 You used to be one of the smartest most interesting guys on here but this is just some of the most ignorant stupidest shit I've read.
The minute I knew the invasion had taken place I knew it was all over. The war party here would solidify control, the Ukrainians would become a proxy regardless of their original intentions, and the Russian and Ukrainian populations would be worse off. There might be a regime change in Russia not necessarily for the better and their might be a civil war. For them most options are lose-lose. But not for our war party.
The PR campaign was smoothly rolled out over a period of years and was 100% successful, as far as I can tell. "We" wanted this war.
They're talking about a negotiated settlement now to cut everyone's losses. Probably the best thing possible.
I'm the same as I was, Barry. Your critique is lacking in substance.
Oh, hey. Didn't realize who you were.
62 lol. Russia invades Ukraine and the war party is those who are in favor of giving Ukraine the means of defending their country? Check yourself. Never figured you for a tankie before. You were smarter than that.
Ha, I didn't put it together, either. Good times.
Iraq war really broke a lot of brains on the left but I thought you were older and wiser than that
It's so simple isn't it Barry? Good guys and bad guys. No context, no long term consequences, and the Ukrainians will be worse off.
The US went into Afghanistan way back when to defend the Afghans against the evil USSR, as it then was. Didn't do the Afghans any good (and gave Osama a nice start) , but Brzezinski gloated about wrong-footing Russia.
Have any of our interventions since 1980 done the locals any good? There have usually been geopolitical reasons, though not always but these things have always been sold as benefiting the locals.
The Iraq War didn't change my mind about much. This stuff goes back 50+ years. After 1991 the original reason / pretext was gone but we couldn't waste our expensive military could we? And then Osama came along for us.
The Iraq War changed my mind in your direction.
I'm curious, John. When you turn up in other social situations and insult everyone in this pompous, semi educated, patronising way, does it ever actually work in terms of bringing people round to your point of view? Or do they just mock you and call you names?
70.1 I tend to be against wars of aggression, murder, rape, kidnapping of children, and the like. But you do you.
And torture. I forgot to mention the torture.
"Have any of our interventions since 1980 done the locals any good?"
Yes, very obviously. I've met a lot of people whose lives they saved but since they weren't Americans it's very clear you wouldn't give a damn about what happened to them or what they think.
i actually used to be much mellower and that didn't work either. I realized that in certain situations I had become everyone's funny pet radical that people tolerated in order to say that they were open minded, but who had convinced very few after many years, so I changed tack. I now believe that that kind of persuasion I hoped for doesn't happen by any method.
I don't admit to being semi-educated. I admit to stating my actual point of view in an uncompromising, unadorned way and if someone wants to call it pompous and condescending OK.
I have been my best to say away from inappropriate forums but as you can see, I have human weaknesses.
On the net are Afghans, Libyans, Somalis, Iraqis and Syrians better off? I am aware that there are individuals who are better off. We mostly have given those peoples civil wars.
Barry, do you want a list of countries practicing aggression, murder, rape, kidnapping of children, and torture? I'll try to keep it to a page and you'll still be able to object all day long and into the night.
Object to what exactly? And what are the odds that China is going to be on that page? The country that has been conducting the worst genocide in the last decade.
So if you aren't trying to persuade anyone of anything and you aren't interested in learning anything and you don't actually like or esteem anyone else here... what are you doing here? Why don't you just, you know, fuck off to somewhere with people who like you?
80. Basically, then you too accept American foreign policy, which is to intervene wherever geopolitics directs them until there is no opposition anywhere. Humanitarian conditions are secondary at best regardless of what they say.
Do you have any idea what a conflict with Cina would entail?
57: This may be generational. I'm getting messages that the under-50 generation is tired of old antiwar boomers and wants a more cheerful, optimistic approach to foreign policy.
80
I'm venting, Ajay. This is not a single-purpose site. And not everyone here feels about me the way you and I feel about one another.
Sorry to be so awful. I've thought this the whole time and nothing has happened to change my mind. The Ukrainians are fucked one way or the other. I can't see it any other way. I will try to withdraw again though perhaps I will fail again.
The thing I get stuck on, with respect to Ukraine specifically, is that I don't see the outcome if we hadn't provided aid that leaves them better off. We don't give aid, the Russians roll in, and Ukraine now has a government which (1) the people of Ukraine don't prefer, and (2) whether or not it's uniquely bad in the world, appears to be worse for its citizens than the Ukrainian government is. Furthermore, it seems realistically possible that the ultimate outcome is going to be that the current war ends and Russia doesn't control Ukraine -- an outcome better than what would have happened without US/European aid seems very plausible.
Iraq, e.g., nothing comparable ever looked likely. There, we rolled in and destroyed an unpleasant but functional government and replaced it with chaos. Anyone who thought we were going to make the people of Iraq better off by bombing them was nuts.
80 I've never uncritically accepted American FP (also, I'm early Gen X fwiw). I opposed American support of the brutal regimes in South and Central America in the 80's, the Iraq war, support for KSA's war on Yemen (that's mostly on Obama), and much else besides. But I know enough to be able to recognize a war of aggression when I see one and Russia's war on Ukraine fits the bill in spades.
84: I really mean this as a serious question, but if you're convinced the Ukrainians are fucked one way or the other, why does it matter to you what the US does? If there isn't a better option for the Ukrainian people, our actions are irrelevant, right?
Your worldview is American parochialism just of the anti variety. Other people exist you know.
87: Continually relying on military solutions, and prioritizing military affairs over domestic affairs has been the curse of the US for decades.
88. Heard this one before. The US is Americocentric because the US has the largest econo, my, the most powerful military by far, has military forces in about half of the 200 countries of the world, and has the rest of NATO following it. I didn't do it. It'sAsk Vekensky if he'd like us to butt out.
My guess is that Ukraine will use some territory but remain independent after a long, devastating war which no one expected fought entirely on their territory. The losses will be huge. I doubt that post war aid will amount to enough. Millions of Ukrainians will have settleed permanently abroad if they are allowed too; that might be the best thing about the outcome for anyone. Will it have been worth it for them? Don't assume that their opinion will remain unanimous.
People went into this so nobly and cheerily expecting that a positive outcome was possible. I doubted that from the beginning. Small countries trapped between large contries are in Hell.
89.1: So, you're opposed to US policy in Ukraine not because you think it's making them worse off, they're screwed regardless, you think it's making us worse off? Geez. Maybe -- could be there's something better we could be doing with that money -- but I could say that about so much of the US budget that I can't imagine focusing on aid to Ukraine.
it also validated the war party which was looking a little ragged after Afghanistan. (Withiin a few weeks). We can expect more from them.They're back in command. Not a one time thing at all.
Reading your comments here is like reading one half of an Isaac Chotiner interview. The non-Chotiner half.
The military budget is almost always larger and almost always passed without debate.
Barry you have expressed your opinion but I don't see that you've responded to any of mine. It's like these are things you've never thought of.
I haven't mentiuoned the dangers of playing nuclear chicken with you claim is a madman, though I tal\ke that danger probably more than you do. I don't think he's a madman.
The crux of my opinion, which is not widely accepted is that I think that if that if the US had wanted to prevent this war using normal diplomatic pressures they could have done (though but without making anyone happy). But they wanted the war to happen, just as in Afghanistan around 1980. The Ukrainians would bleed Russia at their own expense and the US would cash in.
That's the crux.
"And not everyone here feels about me the way you and I feel about one another."
Yeah, I'm sure the lurkers support you in email.
I'm equally sure hates me like you do but and just loves have said you. Did I mention I've lost about half my friends? Has't been fun.
Most of what I has been fairly mainstream, but the curtain came down and discussion is scarcely possible.
"I'm equally sure everyone hates me like you do but and just loves you. " We regret the error.
96.1: At that point, I think you've got more of a disagreement on the facts than on matters of principle. I don't know what your basis is for thinking the US could have stopped the war before it happened, but I think depending on the details, you could get a lot of agreement with the proposition that if we could have prevented it, we should have.
I really think 96.1 is just plain wrong. I don't think Russia could have been deterred by any US diplomatic action. It's not even deterred by the massive military support that NATO has provided to Ukraine, but is going to fight on, hoping for changes either on the ground, or in European capitals. To the extent that Russia was hoping for a change in DC, that didn't happen. But the hope wasn't unreasonable, and the change might well have been significant.
91: People went into this so nobly and cheerily expecting that a positive outcome was possible.
???
I don't see the case for 96.1. Russia seems to have been hoping that Zelensky would flee and the government would collapse after they launched a surprise attack. It would have been very easy to let that happen. Instead, the U.S. et.al made a big deal of "what are all those troops on the border, Vlad?" The U.S. could have stopped the way by letting Ukraine be overrun but there wasn't an offramp that wasn't the U.S. dictating preemptive capitulation.
103 Yes, and Russia's bet that nothing would happen was totally reasonable given (a) nothing much happened in 2014; (b) European dependence on Russian energy; (c) the weak hold that our weak President has on anything, including a military that supported his predecessor; (d) low approval of Zelenskyy; and (e) what the Russian military leadership was saying about relative capabilities. Russia expected to be greeted as a liberator.
What on earth was available to Biden/Blinken to move Russia off this?
I don't understand why the US and the European great powers didn't use the February 2022 Munich conference to inform Ukraine that it was on its own and to prepare to be annexed. No decision made in Munich has ever turned out poorly.
"Did I mention I've lost about half my friends? Has't been fun."
Well, good. You should seriously consider the possibility that they are right and you are wrong
I agree with 102 and others. Who the hell other than Russia went into this expecting anything other than the possibility of a less terrible outcome?
I'm as surprised as anyone to find myself supporting US military expenditures, and there are decisions I can imagine the US making with regard to this conflict that I would not support, but as matters stand I'm just fine with sending arms and intel to help an East European country repel Russian invasion. The consequences of this war are and will be horrific for Ukrainians, but that was going to be the case regardless once Russia decided to invade and enough Ukrainians decided to resist.
I haven't mentioned the dangers of playing nuclear chicken with you claim is a madman
Barry did not claim that Putin is a madman. Nobody here has.
+/- 40,000 arrests isn't shocking news, but 2 sentencings is.
Nobody has said this thing. I'm pretty sure everyone here is appalled by US drug policy. In 31, I explicitly endorsed the idea that we ought to be attentive to this. It honestly didn't occur to me that anyone could be using this argument to undercut US support for Ukraine. And I mean, come on, who calls themselves "Mr. Whatabout," unless they mean it ironically?
But Britney Griner is the most important thing, not anyone else in jail and not what happens in Ukraine.
Nobody has said this. Nobody has said anything that could be honestly mistaken for this.
when it happens in Russia it proves (in accordance with American foreign policy) that Putin is the current evilest man in history.
In fact, nobody has claimed that Putin is the evilest man in history, and nobody has claimed that Griner's imprisonment represents a significant fraction of the evil he is guilty of.
I could go on in this vein, but what would be the point? You're not pretending to engage with what people are actually saying.
I have lost at least half my internet friends on this issue, but none of them have convinced me that they understand what's happening.
I think you might want to consider the possibility that you're just an asshole. You can't let people have their own opinions; you have to have their opinions for them. This extends even to the people of Ukraine and Russia, whose plight isn't about them at all. It's about you:
I haven't based my opinion of what I know about Russia or the Ukraine, much less personal contact. It's about my understanding of American foreign policy.
Suggestion: if you want to be thought of as not-an-asshole, use quotes when you are rebutting someone. That way you can be sure you are not rebutting the thunderstorms in your own head.
Not being an asshole to have friends seems like it's either overestimating the value of friendship or underestimating the value of being an asshole.
The Reddit link in a recent post talked about "sanewashing" Trump's views. This was treated as malfeasance on the part of journalists.
That fails to reckon, though, with the genuine dilemma faced by honest people when they are confronted by bullshit. Look at this thread, and the way people are trying to salvage something coherent from a mountain of nonsense by Mr. Whatabout.
Trumpist bullying is incoherent, dishonest and fallacious, but it rewards its practitioners. Mr. Trump has never had to be sorry or ashamed about anything, and he can be right about everything without doing any work at all. His fans understand this and revere him for it; his foes are confounded by it.
109 is concise, precise pwnage of 110.
102: What positive outcome was possible? People seemed really pleased to be oin the right side.
Good news! We're going to have a natural experiment in whether Trump on twitter is meaningfully different than Trump off twitter. I hope when his account comes back, it will still have its most recent tweets like the one saying Pence had failed.
This probably belongs in another thread but 110 makes it relevant here.
I think that I have proven to everyone's satisfaction that I don't belong here. and apparently, have no friends here except maybe LB's mom.
Hi, p.f. Same to you.
I'll try to stay away. Can't promise.
114: I think the fact that so many people have engaged with you, even snarkily, is a sign that you could still be part of the commentariat. (Maybe not if you only stick to this topic.) But there's obviously not going to be a unified voice on that.
Well, good.
No, it really isn't. John's not a young man. He was, by his own description years ago, already feeling quite isolated. I disagree with many of his conclusions in this thread, though we share some first principles, but I can't imagine why that would lead me to think it a good thing that he's lost friends. The truth is, my perspective on Ukraine is pretty much exactly as inconsequential as John's or yours, ajay, and so there's absolutely no reason to celebrate when the people we disagree with suffer for their views (no matter how off-putting they may be). It's not like John's arguments are going to make their way into policy.
I should probably add a disclaimer: I have little doubt that this comment emerges at least in part from the unpleasant experience of unexpectedly finding myself on the wrong end of your ire during some picayune bullshit argument, but it seems to me that you could stand to be less of a prick when you interact with people here. I'm not trying to be prescriptive, mind you. I've been an absolute shit to some people here through the years--with PGD, I don't regret my conduct at all; with pf, I very much do--so much as suggesting that there are commenters who are more and less vulnerable and more and less deserving of genuinely cutting rhetoric.
I don't think there's any need to leave just because of disagreements and such.
Anyway, I don't remember what sort of awfulness happened with PGD but 117 seems reasonable. And 118 was posted before seeing it.
with pf, I very much do
You shouldn't! I am at times provocative, and I have nobody to blame but myself when people are provoked. (But I'm genuinely delighted if there are no ongoing hard feelings. There are certainly none on my part.)
Oh, I didn't say there are no hard feelings. Consider the possibility that I'm softening you up so you don't expect my next truly devastating attack.
The real Russian labor camp is the friends you meet along the way.
Another voice here for disagreement, but everyone knows I like arguments.
I think a lot, lately about people like Kyrie Irving and Kanye West and Donald Trump. I also think about how people react to them.
Kyrie now informs us, "I'm not antisemitic." And the New York Times, in reporting this, omits mention of the fact that Kyrie previously said, "I'm a bit sleepy tonight but when I wake up I'm going death con 3 On JEWISH PEOPLE."
I understand the NYT's choice here. Kyrie's invocation of "death" probably wasn't a physical threat. And if it was, he never acted on it. This is how "sanewashing" works.
Kyrie has suffered for his beliefs. He's lost a shoe contract and been suspended by his team. I bet he's lost some friends. As a wise man has said, "there's absolutely no reason to celebrate when the people we disagree with suffer for their views (no matter how off-putting they may be)."
And Kyrie's beliefs -- including his belief that the earth is flat -- aren't going to be adopted as policy. Maybe the NYT and the Brooklyn Nets are wise and decent to cut him some slack here.
But I can't shake the nagging suspicion that Kyrie's beliefs are a choice. I think he gains real benefits from saying crazy shit.
So I'm suspicious of the idea that we ought to be charitable to people who adopt bullshit as an ideology. I propose that we treat people like Kyrie with respect by taking them seriously, and by remembering that by and large, they know the costs they are incurring by being boneheads.
Who is Kyrie and why is he copying Kanye's tweets?
Are there any antisemites without shoe contracts?
This is how "sanewashing" works.
I think the proper term is a "Kyrie elision."
129 was me, for better or worse.
I propose that we treat people like Kyrie with respect by taking them seriously
I think its better to treat people like Kyrie/Kanye with disrespect and not take them seriously. Not for their sake, but so that others will think twice before adopting the same shtick.
Anyway, I don't think assuming United States foreign policy is nothing but conspiracy is right but I also don't think it is somehow analogous to thinking there's a Jewish conspiracy.
126: If you're interested in giving respect to Kyrie Irving, you could start by getting the basic facts right. Moby seems to know more about this than you, and Moby doesn't even know who Kyrie Irving is.
"Kanye elision" doesn't have the same ring to it.
I respect your brilliance, fa.
134: The common thread is people making shit up in ways that, on the surface, seem costly. What do they get in return?
117 is a departure from the norm in that it doesn't accuse me of antisemitism which has been your go to response in the last (iirc) three disagreements we've had. Progress!
And I'm not sure about this at all. "there's absolutely no reason to celebrate when the people we disagree with suffer for their views (no matter how off-putting they may be)"
Really? Suffering the very mild consequence of some friends (not even all of them) not wanting to hang out with you is always a terrible and regrettable thing to happen to anyone, no matter how awful their views?
I don't belong here. and apparently, have no friends here except maybe LB's mom.
I'm your friend here, although not in the sense of fully agreeing with you about the war in Ukraine.
I'm wondering if it isn't useful to think about expressing views as conduct, as distinct from the passive having of views. Millions of people have views that could be characterized as anti-Semitic or, more broadly, racist or misogynists. How could it not be so, given that we've all marinated in these things all our lives. The people who get punished for these views, are the people who express them, but only then when they've done so in a particularly (and often intentionally) provocative manner. There's a certain amount of 'play stupid games win stupid prizes' at work here: disagree with your friends about a question of public policy and maybe they'll draw inferences, but do so in a manner that is insulting and impervious to their contrary arguments, and you might just lose friends. Maybe as much for having a schtick of being kind of a jerk as for the actual content of one's views.
Like everyone else, I know something about being a jerk. Even about having it become, on certain topics at least, an identifying feature. We sometimes decide our message is so important that the cost of being seen to be acting like a jerk is worth paying. That calculus is frequently wrong, ime. What's saddest of all, though, is when we devolve to thinking that the cost we are paying is for the views themselves rather than for the jerky conduct with which they were expressed. They hate me because I'm a bold truth-teller is so much more satisfying than they hate me because I'm an asshole. (Wait, no, I *had* to be an asshole or they wouldn't have listened to my bold truth . . . man, is that pathetic, or what.)
When Mr. Whatabout talks about having "lost at least half my internet friends on this issue," I would bet you that the bulk of those losses are a result of him cutting people off, rather than the reverse. Either way, it's a deliberate choice.
As Windsor Churchill said, "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice. "
Check it out man, that's uh 14 mounted toms, 8 floor toms, 4 splashes, 2 gongs, 10 cowbells , 4 rides, 5 snares, a rototom rack, and it's all mounted on my infamous quadruple kick drum system. Six more pieces and I got a bigger drum set than Winston Churchill.
Before I could drop out of graduate school, I had to do graduate school stuff. So, one time I was listening to very distinguished visiting professor talk about something and a very new assistant professor, who would later to go on back Trump in 2016, commented that "As Churchill said, 'there's a lot of ruin in a nation.'" Professor Famous didn't actually say, "That was Adam Smith, asshole" but it was something to that effect.
And then we all went home and watched "Friends" on basic cable, as was the style at the time.
Really? Suffering the very mild consequence of some friends (not even all of them) not wanting to hang out with you is always a terrible and regrettable thing to happen to anyone, no matter how awful their views?
The point I was trying to make is that for some people losing a few friends is a very mild consequence, just as you say, while for others it's not that at all, and also that the awfulness of views should, I tend to think, be gauged in part based on their efficacy. In this case, John is posting on a weblog that only a very few people read, and so it's hard to think that his views are much more than mildly provocative (and, in my view, wrong). Celebrating his loss of friends, then, struck me as disproportionate, particularly in the context of his having said many times that he's sometimes quite lonely.
As for calling you an antisemite, I don't recall having done so. Usually when I do that, I'm kidding, taking part in one of this place's longstanding traditions. But perhaps I was serious in this instance. Again, I don't recall. Either way, you seem to have become one of those people whose interactions with unfogged are pretty poisonous. If my calling you an antisemite was an accelerant in that process, I'm genuinely sorry, because I used to enjoy reading your comments.
PF is correct. I have cut people off. I have spent literally decades catering to people I mostly disagree with in hopes of communicating with them on some fundamental questions and have decided that that was futile. Everyone is about where they were. I believe that the present world situation in multiple areas is much worse than people are acknowledging (not just, or even primarily) here).
I still have half my friends as well as family, so my psychological distress need not be considered in that regard. I can even agree with ajay on that.
I do not claim that American foreign policy is a conspiracy theory. I claim that the US does have a foreign policy (rather than just a series of ad hoc reactions) and that the public is often not honestly told what that policy is. That's a truism, and more or less a universal. about foreign policies anywhere. It does sound like a cospiracy, actually, but the phrase "conspiracy theory" is used so much as a mere pejorative that that it has little usable meaning.
150.3 is right. Or at least I agree with it. But I don't see how far that gets you.