What does Putin want (and whatabout it)

Paul never did explain why he felt the US fighting in WWII was justified. He's aware, surely, that there were a great many anti-semites and white supremacists fighting in the US ranks. If he's able to understand how that didn't mean the Nazis were fighting American white supremacy, then one would think he'd be able to understand how Russia isn't fighting Ukrainian neo-nazis.


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Regarding the issue of Nazis in Ukraine, the phrasing in this NYT article on Wednesday is pretty accurate (my bold):

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/world/europe/russia-border-attack-ukraine.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Analysts of Russian politics said that the attack might stir discontent
over incompetence in the military among pro-war groups, but that it
could also offer Mr. Putin an opportunity to try to rally people around
the flag. Already, the Kremlin has said that the raiders had abandoned
American-made military vehicles inside Russia, and Moscow can use the
far-right histories of some of the raiders to bolster its largely false
claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine.

Well, I'm glad you've changed your position on this, then.

"Largely false" -- which is the same as "partly true" -- has been my position from the beginning.


PVW said:

Paul never did explain why he felt the US fighting in WWII was justified. He's aware, surely, that there were a great many anti-semites and white supremacists fighting in the US ranks. If he's able to understand how that didn't mean the Nazis were fighting American white supremacy, then one would think he'd be able to understand how Russia isn't fighting Ukrainian neo-nazis.

The US army, unlike the Ukrainian army, has never incorporated neo-nazi organizations into its ranks. That's why the Times made the point that Russia's claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine wasn't "false" but "largely false".


paulsurovell said:

"Largely false" -- which is the same as "partly true" -- has been my position from the beginning.

This "it's the same as" nonsense, and then saying that the NY Times is supporting your claims about Ukraine, is just a misleading assertion on your part.

Here's the NY Times today on the same issue - "President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has justified his invasion on the false claim of fighting neo-Nazis and made it a regular theme of Kremlin propaganda."


Russia signs deal to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus (AP)

(A helpful hint -- for the inevitable whatabout to be convincing, it needs to be somewhat equivalent. This is Putin declaring he's going to put actual missiles in a place none where before. So any whatabout focusing on hypotheticals about what the US might do is going to fall short).


paulsurovell said:

The US army, unlike the Ukrainian army, has never incorporated neo-nazi organizations into its ranks. That's why the Times made the point that Russia's claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine wasn't "false" but "largely false".

Hmm, one gets the sense Paul is unaware of the details of US society in the mid 20th century.


The US, in the mid 20th century, was a de-jure white supremacist state. It hardly had to "incorporate" white supremacists organizations into its military.


Since the Nazis have reappeared in the arguments against helping Ukraine, I'll repeat this post from last year.

nohero said:

The people of Ukraine have been defending their country from attack, it's not the other way around.

Do you realize that there are fellow residents of Maplewood and South Orange who are Ukrainian, who would be grievously insulted by your ridiculous claims?

No, you probably don't. I doubt that you actually know any of them.


paulsurovell said:

"Largely false" -- which is the same as "partly true" -- has been my position from the beginning.

And - who is/was the nazis leader - how do they identify nazis? - how many nazis have been eliminated since the campaign to denzazify has begun?

Is annihilating a country the proper way to dispose of nazis?  Was a land grab necessary to properly denazify?


nohero said:

Since the Nazis have reappeared in the arguments against helping Ukraine, I'll repeat this post from last year.

nohero said:

The people of Ukraine have been defending their country from attack, it's not the other way around.

Do you realize that there are fellow residents of Maplewood and South Orange who are Ukrainian, who would be grievously insulted by your ridiculous claims?

No, you probably don't. I doubt that you actually know any of them.

Have you submitted this statement to the Editor of the New York Times?


PVW said:

The US, in the mid 20th century, was a de-jure white supremacist state. It hardly had to "incorporate" white supremacists organizations into its military.

@PVW, sensing he's lost control of the argument, cleverly changes the subject to "white supremacist" from "neo-Nazi". Unless he wants to edit his statement above by substituting "neo-Nazi" for "white supremacist".

I'll help:

"The US, in the mid 20th century, was a de-jure _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state. It hardly had to "incorporate" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ organizations into its military"

Go for it.


paulsurovell said:

@PVW, sensing he's lost control of the argument, cleverly changes the subject to "white supremacist" from "neo-Nazi". Unless he wants to edit his statement above by substituting "neo-Nazi" for "white supremacist".

I'll help:

"The US, in the mid 20th censury, was a de-jure _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state. It hardly had to "incorporate" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ organizations into its military"

Go for it.

I've certainly lost an understanding of what you're trying to say or what point you're hoping to make.


PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

@PVW, sensing he's lost control of the argument, cleverly changes the subject to "white supremacist" from "neo-Nazi". Unless he wants to edit his statement above by substituting "neo-Nazi" for "white supremacist".

I'll help:

"The US, in the mid 20th censury, was a de-jure _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state. It hardly had to "incorporate" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ organizations into its military"

Go for it.

I've certainly lost an understanding of what you're trying to say or what point you're hoping to make.

Oh, the typo threw you off.  Here's a corrected version of your fill-in-the-blanks assignment to update your statement:

"The US, in the mid 20th century, was a de-jure _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state.  It hardly had to "incorporate" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ organizations into its military"


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Since the Nazis have reappeared in the arguments against helping Ukraine, I'll repeat this post from last year.

nohero said:

The people of Ukraine have been defending their country from attack, it's not the other way around.

Do you realize that there are fellow residents of Maplewood and South Orange who are Ukrainian, who would be grievously insulted by your ridiculous claims?

No, you probably don't. I doubt that you actually know any of them.

Have you submitted this statement to the Editor of the New York Times?

I'm not sure how to tie that into what the NY Times says about Ukraine.

I suppose I could write something along the lines of, "Dear NY Times: Some apologists for Putin's invasion of Ukraine say that Putin is justified in invading in order to 'deNazify' Ukraine - and they find support in your choice of words. Have you considered taking that into account?"


Putin also invaded Ukraine to “de-militarize” the country, along with the “de-nazification” he spewed all over the world….so far I think he has converted Ukrainians into fearless fighters who now possess one of the most powerful armies in the world. Everything Putin says is a lie, and the lies are catching up with him. Send Wagner to Sudan so they can continue the genocide of Africans, get Prigozhin out of his hair, and out of the Russian federation, because he might very well force Putin out and take his place in a military coup. The walls are closing in on Putin. 


paulsurovell said:

Oh, the typo threw you off.  Here's a corrected version of your fill-in-the-blanks assignment to update your statement:

"The US, in the mid 20th century, was a de-jure _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ state.  It hardly had to "incorporate" _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ organizations into its military"

No, it's your whole approach that's throwing me off.

You find the presence of far right nationalists among Ukrainian fighters significant, and is among the reasons you seem to oppose Ukraine (again, please don't try to claim you don't favor Russia when the positions you express on this thread objectively favor Russian victory over Ukraine). When I point out that a fighting force you've expressed support for -- the US military in WWI, also included far-right nationalists (probably far more, both numerically and proportionally than in Ukraine's military in fact), you don't find that significant.

Perhaps the reason for this is obvious to you, but it's certainly obscure to me.


You d

paulsurovell said:

@PVW, sensing he's lost control of the argument, cleverly changes the subject to "white supremacist" from "neo-Nazi".

I guess this is a clue to what you're trying to say, but, again, however obvious it seems to you, I assure you I have no idea what you're trying to say here.


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

Since the Nazis have reappeared in the arguments against helping Ukraine, I'll repeat this post from last year.

nohero said:

The people of Ukraine have been defending their country from attack, it's not the other way around.

Do you realize that there are fellow residents of Maplewood and South Orange who are Ukrainian, who would be grievously insulted by your ridiculous claims?

No, you probably don't. I doubt that you actually know any of them.

Have you submitted this statement to the Editor of the New York Times?

I'm not sure how to tie that into what the NY Times says about Ukraine.

I suppose I could write something along the lines of, "Dear NY Times: Some apologists for Putin's invasion of Ukraine say that Putin is justified in invading in order to 'deNazify' Ukraine - and they find support in your choice of words. Have you considered taking that into account?"

Or, instead of prevaricating you could be honest and say: "the NY Times just published the same assessment of Neo Nazis in Ukraine* that's been expressed by someone who opposes Russia's invasion but also holds the US and NATO responsible for failing to stop it by agreeing to end Ukraine's quest to join NATO and urging Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement, and then in March-April 2022 by sabotaging a similar agreement between Ukraine and Russia because the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia militarily."

*

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/world/europe/russia-border-attack-ukraine.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Analysts of Russian politics said that the attack might stir discontent over incompetence in the military among pro-war groups, but that it could also offer Mr. Putin an opportunity to try to rally people around the flag. Already, the Kremlin has said that the raiders had abandoned American-made military vehicles inside Russia, and Moscow can use the far-right histories of some of the raiders to bolster its largely false claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine.


PVW said:

You d

paulsurovell said:

@PVW, sensing he's lost control of the argument, cleverly changes the subject to "white supremacist" from "neo-Nazi".

I guess this is a clue to what you're trying to say, but, again, however obvious it seems to you, I assure you I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Fill in the blanks as suggested above and you'll get it.


So you're unable or unwilling to explain yourself then? As I've noted before, the only through line I can see in your judgements is that you oppose military actions by the US or its allies except those where the US fought on the same side as Russia.

paulsurovell said:

Or, instead of prevaricating you could be honest and say: "the NY Times just published the same assessment of Neo Nazis in Ukraine* that's been expressed by someone who opposes Russia's invasion but also holds the US and NATO responsible for failing to stop it by agreeing to end Ukraine's quest to join NATO and urging Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement, and then in March-April 2022 by sabotaging a similar agreement between Ukraine and Russia because the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia militarily."

*

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/world/europe/russia-border-attack-ukraine.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Analysts of Russian politics said that the attack might stir discontent over incompetence in the military among pro-war groups, but that it could also offer Mr. Putin an opportunity to try to rally people around the flag. Already, the Kremlin has said that the raiders had abandoned American-made military vehicles inside Russia, and Moscow can use the far-right histories of some of the raiders to bolster its largely false claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine.

You're repeating the quote that I already addressed (not that you responded to my post about that). In fact, you ignored my response and made a false allegation that I was "prevaricating".

And as for the portion of your response that I "bolded" above - you keep repeating that false narrative, no matter how many times it's been rebutted here. 


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

Or, instead of prevaricating you could be honest and say: "the NY Times just published the same assessment of Neo Nazis in Ukraine* that's been expressed by someone who opposes Russia's invasion but also holds the US and NATO responsible for failing to stop it by agreeing to end Ukraine's quest to join NATO and urging Ukraine to implement the Minsk agreement, and then in March-April 2022 by sabotaging a similar agreement between Ukraine and Russia because the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia militarily."

*

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/24/world/europe/russia-border-attack-ukraine.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur
Analysts of Russian politics said that the attack might stir discontent over incompetence in the military among pro-war groups, but that it could also offer Mr. Putin an opportunity to try to rally people around the flag. Already, the Kremlin has said that the raiders had abandoned American-made military vehicles inside Russia, and Moscow can use the far-right histories of some of the raiders to bolster its largely false claim to be fighting Nazis in Ukraine.

You're repeating the quote that I already addressed (not that you responded to my post about that). In fact, you ignored my response and made a false allegation that I was "prevaricating".

And as for the portion of your response that I "bolded" above - you keep repeating that false narrative, no matter how many times it's been rebutted here. 

I forgot to add that in your letter to the Editor of the NY Times you need to also demand that the Times stop publishing assessments of the facts that some readers might find objectionable.


PVW said:

So you're unable or unwilling to explain yourself then? As I've noted before, the only through line I can see in your judgements is that you oppose military actions by the US or its allies except those where the US fought on the same side as Russia.

C'mon man, admit it. You know that you switched "white supremacists" for "Neo Nazis" and made a mockery of your argument. 


I'm being facetious here. Kind of.


paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

So you're unable or unwilling to explain yourself then? As I've noted before, the only through line I can see in your judgements is that you oppose military actions by the US or its allies except those where the US fought on the same side as Russia.

C'mon man, admit it. You know that you switched "white supremacists" for "Neo Nazis" and made a mockery of your argument. 

You really don't see how this is a self-own on your part?


paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

You're repeating the quote that I already addressed (not that you responded to my post about that). In fact, you ignored my response and made a false allegation that I was "prevaricating".

And as for the portion of your response that I "bolded" above - you keep repeating that false narrative, no matter how many times it's been rebutted here. 

I forgot to add that in your letter to the Editor of the NY Times you need to also demand that the Times stop publishing assessments of the facts that some readers might find objectionable.

So you're still ignoring how I pointed out how misleading your whole argument is, about the NY Times supporting your position.

Which makes the content of your "I forgot to add" sentence just nonsense.


paulsurovell said:

C'mon man, admit it. You know that you switched "white supremacists" for "Neo Nazis" and made a mockery of your argument. 

Wait, that's what you're arguing?

I'm going to assume you're not trying to make a semantic argument and that there's some substantive difference between "white supremacist" and "neo-nazi" you find significant here. And since you've declined to explain, I guess I'll have to guess.

White supremacist is the broader term, and includes a large number of groups, of which "neo-nazi" is one. Obviously the American white supremacists fighting in WWII couldn't have been neo-nazis, since there were actual nazis at that time so "neo" couldn't be a thing yet. And they obviously weren't Nazis since they were fighting against, not for, the establishment of German empire based on the elevation of the Aryan "race."

Of course, Ukrainian neo-nazis also arent' fighting for the establishment of a German empire, so that can't be the difference you see. Perhaps it's the "based on race?" No, that can't be, since then that applies to the Americans as well -- there's that whole "white supremacist" again. Recall also that the Nazis took much of the inspiration for their race laws from America.

Obviously Ukrainian neo-nazis aren't building a system of death camps, so that can't be the "-nazi" aspect you're fixated on. Perhaps just the general anti-semitism? But then again, mid-century American white supremacists were plenty anti-semite (hard to see them voting for, then fighitng on behalf of, a Jewish president, for instance).

Perhaps if we look at things from the Russian point of view it'll make more sense. For Russians, the defining aspect of WWI and Nazism, and for Putin today, was anti-Russianism. Ah, that does make more sense -- the American white supremacists were fighting on the same side as Russia, the Ukrainian ones are fighting against Russia.

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

C'mon man, admit it. You know that you switched "white supremacists" for "Neo Nazis" and made a mockery of your argument. 

Wait, that's what you're arguing?

I'm going to assume you're not trying to make a semantic argument and that there's some substantive difference between "white supremacist" and "neo-nazi" you find significant here. And since you've declined to explain, I guess I'll have to guess.

White supremacist is the broader term, and includes a large number of groups, of which "neo-nazi" is one. Obviously the American white supremacists fighting in WWII couldn't have been neo-nazis, since there were actual nazis at that time so "neo" couldn't be a thing yet. And they obviously weren't Nazis since they were fighting against, not for, the establishment of German empire based on the elevation of the Aryan "race."

Of course, Ukrainian neo-nazis also arent' fighting for the establishment of a German empire, so that can't be the difference you see. Perhaps it's the "based on race?" No, that can't be, since then that applies to the Americans as well -- there's that whole "white supremacist" again. Recall also that the Nazis took much of the inspiration for their race laws from America.

Obviously Ukrainian neo-nazis aren't building a system of death camps, so that can't be the "-nazi" aspect you're fixated on. Perhaps just the general anti-semitism? But then again, mid-century American white supremacists were plenty anti-semite (hard to see them voting for, then fighitng on behalf of, a Jewish president, for instance).

Perhaps if we look at things from the Russian point of view it'll make more sense. For Russians, the defining aspect of WWI and Nazism, and for Putin today, was anti-Russianism. Ah, that does make more sense -- the American white supremacists were fighting on the same side as Russia, the Ukrainian ones are fighting against Russia.

I apologize for calling out your blunder. I really didn't mean to cause you to take so much time to try to cover it up.


nohero said:

paulsurovell said:

nohero said:

You're repeating the quote that I already addressed (not that you responded to my post about that). In fact, you ignored my response and made a false allegation that I was "prevaricating".

And as for the portion of your response that I "bolded" above - you keep repeating that false narrative, no matter how many times it's been rebutted here. 

I forgot to add that in your letter to the Editor of the NY Times you need to also demand that the Times stop publishing assessments of the facts that some readers might find objectionable.

So you're still ignoring how I pointed out how misleading your whole argument is, about the NY Times supporting your position.

Which makes the content of your "I forgot to add" sentence just nonsense.

Let's assume for argument's sake that my argument is "misleading". That doesn't absolve you from dishonestly misrepresenting my argument.


paulsurovell said:

Let's assume for argument's sake that my argument is "misleading". That doesn't absolve you from dishonestly misrepresenting my argument.

That’s definitely misleading about what I’ve posted in response to your arguments. 


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.

Sponsored Business

Find Business

Advertise here!