Russia and Ukraine

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 483
#421
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
I gave you multiple examples of Trump’s interactions and handling of Russia and/or Putin. Your one example of Trump being tough on Russia was him complaining about an oil deal Germany did with them. Please tell me with a straight face that this example is comparable to the examples I listed. 
Oh, brother. And again I must point you back to the beginning of our discussion to the nonpartisan article I linked in post 343 which provides a great deal of context in contrast to your TDS inspired bloviating. Do you need me to paste the whole timeline here, or should I expect you to (falsely) accuse me of “Gish galloping”?

#422
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
WTF? Are you serious? I wrote this entire post:
Huh, I was talking about allegations that I vote bombed the debate and didn’t win in my merits. 

Go on, tell me all about the questions of yours that I ignored. Can’t wait to hear this…
Want to have Whiteflame, who is the most objective judge do an informal vote? Somehow it got lost in all your salt
#423
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
Excerpted:

“The following is the text of the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership signed by U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba in Washington, D.C. on November 10, 2021.
…
Section II: Security and Countering Russian Aggression

The United States and Ukraine  share a vital national interest in a strong, independent, and democratic Ukraine. Bolstering Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against threats to its territorial integrity and deepening Ukraine’s integration into Euro-Atlantic institutions are concurrent priorities.

The United States recognizes Ukraine’s unique contribution to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament and reaffirms its commitments under the “Memorandum on Security Assurances in Connection with Ukraine’s Accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (the Budapest Memorandum) of December 5, 1994.

Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.”


Putin has been pretty clear that he isn’t a fan of Russia bordering a member nation of NATO.
Topic's author
#424
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
left wing Russia?
#425
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Isn’t Russia left wing?  They were the head of the USSR.
#426
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Oh, brother. And again I must point you back to the beginning of our discussion to the nonpartisan article I linked in post 343 which provides a great deal of context in contrast to your TDS inspired bloviating. Do you need me to paste the whole timeline here, or should I expect you to (falsely) accuse me of “Gish galloping”?
There is a reason I don’t respond to links, it’s often a monumental waste of time as it was here. But I’ll go ahead and indulge you on this one. In the future if you have an argument, make it yourself. 

Your link lists 52 different policy actions to support the notion that Trump was “tough on Russia”. Out of those 52 actions, about half (24) were either a WH Statement, press release, announcement, declaration, or alert. Since rhetoric doesn’t count, neither do any of those.

Out of the remaining actions, there was still a mix. Other actions listed here included multiple indictments issued by the Department of Justice, which the US President is not even supposed to have any involvement in, but most remarkable was that it included sanctions resulting from the Mueller probe which Trump adamantly opposed, rallied against for years, and even tried to stop himself. Yes, your link is giving Trump credit for this.

And then there’s the list of snoozers, including a ban on Kaspersky anti virus software on federal computers, sanctioning a Russian bank because it evaded a US sanction on Venezuela, or an executive order directing federal gov agencies to investigate the 2018 mid term elections for Russian interference. (I mean seriously, they needed to be told this?)

This isn’t to say Trump did nothing good. The toughest action listed here was the strike in Syria, but that hardly qualifies as Trump being tough on Russia. The only reason it made the list is because Russian mercenaries were among the casualties, which hardly qualifies.

The best example on this list of Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the poisoning in Europe. I give him credit for stepping up on that one. But at the same time, this is hardly remarkable given that the US was just one of 18 countries who did the same thing, which brings me to my point… your entire argument that Trump was tough on Russia is that at times, Trump did his job.

If I order a steak medium and the waiter brings me a steak cooked medium, that doesn’t mean the waiter deserves a raise. It doesn’t mean the waiter is the star of my restaurant. And it for damn sure doesn’t excuse all of the times the waiter fucked up someone else’s order.

I could go on here, but let me just go back to where this conversation began… I did not jump into this thread to claim that Trump was so much worse than any other president with regards to Russia, even though that is still my view. I jumped into this thread in response to those claiming that the absence of Trump’s strength against Putin is why Putin decided to invade Ukraine.  That’s an absurd claim, and if you want to substantiate it you need to do more than hand waive away everything Trump has done in front of our eyes and instead post a link to “actions” Trump took against Russia.

And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…
#427
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
Huh, I was talking about allegations that I vote bombed the debate and didn’t win in my merits. 
I didn’t accuse you of vote bombing and it’s not for me to judge who won the debate. I was responding to your chest beating acting as if people who agreed with you and voted on that basis confirms that you “crushed me” or whatever verbiage you used. The only exception was Ragnar who’s vote according to him might have possibly gone a different way if the link I posted actually worked.

Want to have Whiteflame, who is the most objective judge do an informal vote?
No. I’m not the one who brought up a year old debate. If anyone else is interested in reading it and providing feedback I welcome it, but not asking anyone else to get involved in some childish dick measuring contest.

#428
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
I didn’t accuse you of vote bombing and it’s not for me to judge who won the debate. I was responding to your chest beating acting as if people who agreed with you and voted on that basis confirms that you “crushed me” or whatever verbiage you used. The only exception was Ragnar who’s vote according to him might have possibly gone a different way if the link I posted actually worked.
Yes, you said my “friends” made me win, which is categorically false. I won the debate fair and square. Have you no decency?

No. I’m not the one who brought up a year old debate. If anyone else is interested in reading it and providing feedback I welcome it, but not asking anyone else to get involved in some childish dick measuring contest.
Lmaoooo, you accuse me of vote bombing, essentially implying that I didn’t win based on my merits. Stop being salty and be a man. Admit I won fair and square
#429
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,996
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
Lmaoooo, you accuse me of vote bombing, essentially implying that I didn’t win based on my merits. Stop being salty and be a man. Admit I won fair and square
Lol, a liberal never loses. He just deflects.
#430
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
If you really want to continue this dick measuring contest leave a comment in the debate.

#431
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,926
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
...." Lol, a liberal never loses. He just deflects "....

Laugh a lot less, a lying right espousing falsehoods deflects further from truth than all.

Just look at how much Putin and China are lying and hiding from truth.

They learned from Trumpet or the other way around,, Trumpet learned from them.

Sing-along with the Orange Trumpist's

We all live in an Orange Submarine, on a little blue marble, out in space.

We all live in an Orange Submarine, on a little blue marble, out in space.

...' Closest Ever to Apocalypse: Doomsday Clock Remains at 100 Seconds to Midnight '....https://scitechdaily.com/closest-ever-to-apocalypse-doomsday-clock-remains-at-100-seconds-to-midnight/

Who will come to save humanity from themselves? The Trumpist's? The  anti-abortionist's?  One  dictator or two? Democracy?

May more peacekeepers in every nation would save humanity ?from itself?

Maybe a  free energy technology will save humanity from itself?

Maybe the invention of the internet is humanities savior and we just dont see that yet.
#432
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
If you really want to continue this dick measuring contest leave a comment in the debate.
Just admit I won fair and square. Simple
#433
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@ILikePie5
Fair and square is inclusive of context-abusive resolutions yes?

Then you won fair and square by making the semantics of the debate revolve around impeachment being what was not to be done to the ex-president even though he was unfit to be president and fucked up so much so many times and is corrupt to the core.
Topic's author
#434
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@TheUnderdog
keep up please, its not 1990 anymore. Russia, although not super conservative, is 10x more right-wing than both major parties in the USA
#435
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
You were asking why Putin waited till now to invade. Here’s a good reason which Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor posits…
#436
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,996
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 Here’s a good reason which Trump’s own hand picked National security advisor posits…bla bla from Bolton...
"John Bolton is only happy when America is at war. President Trump led America into one of the most peaceful times in U.S. history, which included growing investment into NATO by $50 billion,"

 "John Bolton is just mad he was fired before it could be spent."

-TheOrangeman

It's so funny and predictable that all the evidence presented from TDS mouth breathers to validate themselves are all in the form of hypotheticals in lieu of factual outcomes. It's also pathetic.


#437
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,996
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Here's another hypothetical.

"One day Biden will stop buying Russian Oil."

Absolutely pathologically hypothetical.

#438
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Fair and square is inclusive of context-abusive resolutions yes?

Then you won fair and square by making the semantics of the debate revolve around impeachment being what was not to be done to the ex-president even though he was unfit to be president and fucked up so much so many times and is corrupt to the core.
Believe it or not, the US Constitution and it’s interpretation depends on semantics + it’s intention by the founding fathers. It was clear that the Founders established a process that could only allow barring from office after removal.
#439
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Relying on John Bolton the war monger eh?

Still waiting on the admission that I won the debate fair and square
#440
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Greyparrot
Only logical that a guy who wanted to leave NATO would ask NATO countries to contribute more to the shared defense.
#441
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
There is a reason I don’t respond to links, it’s often a monumental waste of time as it was here. But I’ll go ahead and indulge you on this one.
Gee, thanks! I owe you one…

In the future if you have an argument, make it yourself. 
Because politics and foreign policy can be fully presented, substantiated, analyzed and deconstructed solely via formal logic and self-evident truths by the layperson?

This is your style in a nutshell:

Either this:
Me: [states an opinion]
You: “I call BS! Provide links or else you’re just making sh!t up.
Or this:
Me: [provides links]
You: “I don’t entertain links as they’re a waste of my time. Make your own argument!

In the future, you will continue to see posters avoid engaging you in earnest— presumably because they lack the fortitude, the intellectual foundation or integrity to do so. They don’t have the guts!! THAT must be it…

Your link lists 52 different policy actions to support the notion that Trump was “tough on Russia”. Out of those 52 actions, about half (24) were either a WH Statement, press release, announcement, declaration, or alert. Since rhetoric doesn’t count, neither do any of those.

Words don’t count? When did I ever say that? I suppose it’s no coincidence you assume that as true when it works for you, whereas you have posited the opposite until now.

Out of the remaining actions, there was still a mix. Other actions listed here included multiple indictments issued by the Department of Justice, which the US President is not even supposed to have any involvement in, but most remarkable was that it included sanctions resulting from the Mueller probe which Trump adamantly opposed, rallied against for years, and even tried to stop himself. Yes, your link is giving Trump credit for this.
The AG is appointed by the president— that’s part of my earlier point re:  it’s a team effort, not always a one man show. The prez picks the team.

And then there’s the list of snoozers, including a ban on Kaspersky anti virus software on federal computers, sanctioning a Russian bank because it evaded a US sanction on Venezuela, or an executive order directing federal gov agencies to investigate the 2018 mid term elections for Russian interference. (I mean seriously, they needed to be told this?)

This isn’t to say Trump did nothing good. The toughest action listed here was the strike in Syria, but that hardly qualifies as Trump being tough on Russia. The only reason it made the list is because Russian mercenaries were among the casualties, which hardly qualifies.

The best example on this list of Trump expelling 60 Russian diplomats after the poisoning in Europe. I give him credit for stepping up on that one. But at the same time, this is hardly remarkable given that the US was just one of 18 countries who did the same thing, which brings me to my point… your entire argument that Trump was tough on Russia is that at times, Trump did his job.

If I order a steak medium and the waiter brings me a steak cooked medium, that doesn’t mean the waiter deserves a raise. It doesn’t mean the waiter is the star of my restaurant. And it for damn sure doesn’t excuse all of the times the waiter fucked up someone else’s order.

Man, you have a genuine talent for discounting contrary facts. It’s truly something to behold. So, a president should not be credited for *acting* on results from a report unless the investigation behind it had his full blessing. And if a president is “merely” doing his job, he really shouldn’t be credited for doing it well… because it’s much like a server getting your food order right… right?

I get the idea that you believe these things have nothing to do with foreign relations with Russia, that these things play out in a vacuum:
- energy policy
- policy in Syria and Afghanistan
- admonishing NATO countries to pay their share of defense costs
- the Iran nuclear deal
- bombing Soleimani
- tariffs on China

I could go on here, but let me just go back to where this conversation began… I did not jump into this thread to claim that Trump was so much worse than any other president with regards to Russia, even though that is still my view. I jumped into this thread in response to those claiming that the absence of Trump’s strength against Putin is why Putin decided to invade Ukraine.  That’s an absurd claim, and if you want to substantiate it you need to do more than hand waive away everything Trump has done in front of our eyes and instead post a link to “actions” Trump took against Russia.
Ah, ok. So now, you demand a link— after I supplied 2, and you claimed you don’t entertain links except when “indulging” me. Please…

And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…

I don’t know where you get the idea that I automatically approve of everything Trump said or did. GP tried explaining this, too. I don’t check what letter is next to a politician’s name before I determine what they did is good or bad. Seems you do, though.

Anyway, you already answered your own question for me to your own satisfaction, remember? It seems clear to me, at least, that my answer *couldn’t possibly* satisfy you as much as your assumed answer. You have shown yourself to be completely unreceptive. So… where’s the pleasure or point in me answering a question asked in hostility??

#442
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@cristo71
Challenge him to a debate. Brought his ego down a bit after I crushed him in my debate with him
#443
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,996
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ILikePie5
You have a lot of patience for Dunning-Kruger Biden sycophants.

You should read the defenses from these little political soldiers on Biden's Oil policy. Hilariously out of touch with reality.
#444
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
You should read the defenses from these little political soldiers on Biden's Oil policy. Hilariously out of touch with reality.
Wrong, they have more right to dislike it than you do.
#445
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
Because politics and foreign policy can be fully presented, substantiated, analyzed and deconstructed solely via formal logic and self-evident truths by the layperson?
No. My issue is not that you posted a link. It’s that you posted a link in place of an actual argument. Then when I click on the link, it’s essentially a list of 52 other links for me to follow in order to guess what it is you’re actually pointing to. Links are perfectly fine when they supplement your argument, not when they’re making it for you.

Words don’t count? When did I ever say that?
Post #410

“I understand that you believe Trump’s words speak louder than his administration’s actions and policies. We disagree on that prioritization.”

This entire conversation got to the point where it is because you hand waived away every example I gave of Trump telling us and showing us his position towards Russia as ‘just words’. So please make up your mind, they’re either valid criticisms or they’re not.

And if a president is “merely” doing his job, he really shouldn’t be credited for doing it well
No, the question is about how you evaluate whether he is doing his job well. What my example pointed out is that to do this you need to look at the entire picture, not just the good parts. This is logic 101 and anybody who’s ever been in a position to evaluate others knows that.

And BTW, since you are still insistent on this stupid TDS narrative, how about giving me a real direct answer to the Biden hypothetical that you ignored in my last post? Something more than “if Biden did something good, I’d say good job”…
I don’t know where you get the idea that I automatically approve of everything Trump said or did.
From all of the ducking and dodging you are doing to avoid acknowledging any of his faults. You jumped into a conversation about whether Trump’s strength  against Putin was such that it would have stopped him from deciding to invade Ukraine. There is hardly any single example more relevant to that question than Trump cow towing to Putin the world stage in a manner that will undoubtably go down in history as the most pathetic display of weakness any president has ever presented to the world. Yet, in this conversation, when I ask you what your thoughts are on that specific incident and how you believe that factors into whatever your position is, you accuse me of TDS. As if my recognition of just how sad and pathetic that was, as well as how telling that was when it comes to Trump’s inability to be tough with Putin, is some kind of diagnosable illness.

That is not how someone being intellectually honest behaves. So it is predictable that you would instead go with this narrative of “look at what his team has done”, a common right wing defense because there is no other way to defend the man or that which he himself brought to the table. His team has done good things for the country because that is what the federal government does, it will always be staffed with Americans who care about America. If Trump could replace every single career official with a Trump sycophant who only cared about his personal fortunes he would. You know that’s a fact. But he can’t, I don’t credit him for the limitations we place on him.
#446
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
Relying on John Bolton the war monger eh?
Trump did pick him didn’t he?

Still waiting on the admission that I won the debate fair and square
And I already explained to you that I would continue the conversation in the debate comments, not here on a forum about Russia.

You talk about my ego, you’re the one who ignored an entire post about the topic at hand to talk about a debate you won over a year ago all because I expressed my desire to find intelligent people to discuss issues with. Yet with every post you prove my point over and over again. There are few things on a debate site more distasteful than derailing a thread to talk about one of your own debates, but here we are and you don’t even have any awareness of how childish it makes you look.

#447
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Where is your evidence that the USSR is more right wing than both parties in the US?

Also, what matters (if you want to back only right wing countries) is if Russia is more right wing than Ukraine, which I doubt.
#448
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Double_R
Trump did pick him didn’t he?
You can pick a qualified individual but not agree with them. And Trump personally didn’t pick him. His advisors mainly did.

And I already explained to you that I would continue the conversation in the debate comments, not here on a forum about Russia.

You talk about my ego, you’re the one who ignored an entire post about the topic at hand to talk about a debate you won over a year ago all because I expressed my desire to find intelligent people to discuss issues with. Yet with every post you prove my point over and over again. There are few things on a debate site more distasteful than derailing a thread to talk about one of your own debates, but here we are and you don’t even have any awareness of how childish it makes you look.
I know for a fact you’re delusional with TDS. Nothing Trump could’ve ever done would’ve been satisfactory to you. Even if he does something good, you say he didn’t do enough. That’s the difference between you and me. But sure, I await your comment in the debate section
#449
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,552
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@Double_R
Me acknowledging and pointing out to you that actions speak louder than words is hardly equivalent to “rhetoric doesn’t count.” I could explain this to you in detail and with real world examples, but (1) I have wasted enough time typing long responses to your strident posts and (2) you really shouldn’t need it explained if you are as logical as you make yourself out to be.

And, for the record, I initially accused you of TDS after I asked “Which politician do you believe has been tough with Russia?” and you responded dodgily, “Pretty much every one except Trump.” That’s pretty “textbook” stuff…



#450
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,263
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@cristo71
The entire point of arguing that actions speak louder than words is to discount one’s words so that their actions could be examined instead. That’s common sense, and it means exactly what I just described. And what made this even clearer is the way you continue to duck and dodge when I ask you tell me what you think of Trump cow towing to Putin on the world stage and how you factor that into this discussion. When it comes to his actions you expect me to sort through 52 different links to read up on all of Trump’s policy actions, but you cannot even be bothered to comment on what you think about one specific example that the entire world witnessed in horror.

And no, my answer earlier does not justify this silly TDS allegation. You cannot point to one remarkable action against Russia which Trump took that we wouldn’t have reasonably expected any US President in our lifetimes to take if they faced the same circumstances. But I can point to multiple negative things that no president in our lifetimes would have ever conceivably done but Trump. So to say “any other president but Trump” is not a sign of mental illness, it’s logic 101.