Your article is complete US empire propagandist nonsense.
Kiev began the war in 2014 by attacking Donbas, under direction of US operative Victoria Nuland and the CIA, following a US backed coup in 2014 in which Ukrainian neo-Nazis were used (much as the US used Muslim extremists in Afghanistan) to run the military action.
Crimea was transferred back to Russia by a peaceful vote of its majority Russian population who refused to be ruled by a Nazi controlled government in Kiev which literally attempted to ban use of the Russian language in Ukraine.
Below is the link to a *factual* report on how the war was started and then proceeded in Ukraine, by a reporter who actually does unbiased, objective and diligent research and fact checking before publishing. Be sure to follow the reference links at the end of the article to get the full picture of the history, from the Obama administration to today.
"Why Are *Both* Republicans & Democrats Lying About Russia?"
You are free to disagree with me on anything I write, that's completely fair.
I do not appreciate the insults, however. I am a journalist by trade and calling my writing "propagandist nonsense" is about the worst thing you could do to a professional in this trade. I don't mind personal insults, but I won't have you libeling my work. Especially if you do it to promote yourself. Consider this your first and only warning. If you do this again, you will be blocked and all everything you wrote will be deleted. I take pride in my work and will not have some moron discredit it with nonsense just to push his own agenda.
No. And I'm not going to. He introduced himself by throwing the worst insult my way I can pretty much imagine for someone in my profession. This relationship is over before it began.
Words like 'nonsense' and my admonition on your unacceptable lack of research, are strong criticisms, not 'insults'.
If you are insulted, that's an indication of embarrassment (which is exactly what you should be feeling after posting something so poorly researched on such a deadly serious subject).
And of course you are not going to read it, because you are more interested in retaining your own ideological biases than in learning the truth.
Self-promotion may often be a curse, but its not that when one has constructed an argument. You both have track records outside of substack, but here you only have 100+ subscribers so please consider that marketing isn't the goal.
I also say that hoping you had read mine. And I'm definitely not boosting my substack. After the 24th, I will rarely post or comment to ensure I don't make this social media, and to write better.
An interesting opinion, though I consider the coup in Maidan to have been an action of war against Russia. I am hoping that the war ends far sooner. Sometimes unravelling happens quickly.
Well, speaking as someone who's spent way too much time in university studying these things, you technically can't have an act of war outside your own sovereign territory that doesn't involve your citizens or military assets. Even the Nord Stream attack would be debatable as an act of war against Germany. It was German critical infrastructure, but the attack happened outside of German territorial waters. And even if your military was attacked, it's hard to justify this as an act of war if you had no business being there (the issue in question in the original Gulf of Tonkin incident). So no, from the view of accepted standards in international relations, Putin was the clear aggressor in both 2014 and 2022.
Technically sound but 'semantical'. A dictionary argument doesn't take into account realism. The results of not responding to U.S. provocation would have lead to the further disadvantage of Russia. If you know someone is sharpening a knife to kill you, it makes sense to take the knife. And, in the greater context, we cannot ignore the violent overseas history of the U.S.
Separately, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and fiction shouldn't be an example. Vietnam was not next to the U.S. and had no history with it. Plus the US fired first, and it was the fictitious second incident that was weaponised. 'Fog of War' is one of the best documentaries I've seen. McNamara (spelling?) was an arsehole.
It is not a dictionary argument. There is well-established consensus on what constitutes an act of war in historical science, going all the way back to the 19th century. You can use the word to mean something else, fair enough, but you won't be using scientifically accurate language at that point. And I always endeavour to do that. Out of clarity for my readers at the very least.
I was also takking about the ORIGINAL Gulf of Tonkin incident. Not the follow-up that was invented. The whole thing was a scandal precisely because the first incident didn't constitute an act of war (as I explained) and the second one that would have was made up. It is thus a good example of why attacking a foreign military is not always an act of war (namely if the foreign military is itself breaking treaties or violating sovereign or international territory).
What does that have to do with my act of war argument? As I said, probably a stretch to call it an act of war against Germany. It would have been an act of war against Denmark had it been in their territorial waters, though. Who owns the pipeline doesn't really matter. Infraction on a country's territory or destroying important assets to that country is what counts, I would think.
Historical science surely lends to dictionary definitions, and definitions are open to interpretation e.g. Oxford's "An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war."
Sun Tzu would likely have been a realist when faced with a historical foe building up a neighbouring state.
Let's go bigger picture. Do you or don't you believe that the USA was provoking war? If not, what do you see the USA's role in Ukraine as, before 2022. Maybe that would improve our argument.
How did you get the idea that I am of the opinion that the US wasn't provoking a war? I have said (in podcast episodes and in writing) many times that my understanding of the situation is that the NATO expansion (at the behest of the US) and attempts to integrate Ukraine in the EU (which the US at least condoned) where a clear provocation. I am not sure this should be seen as a provocation to war, but I have said many times that I can see the Russian viewpoint in understanding it as such.
On the other hand, as I understand it, US foreign policy under Obama influenced Ukraine not to go to all-out war after the invasion of Crimea in 2014. So, at least of a period of time, the US was clearly de-escalating the situation to not have all-out war break out.
I asked the last part because some of your thoughts seemed at odd with each other e.g.,
"The simple fact of the matter is that Vladimir Putin enacted a cold hearted and brutal plan that — when all is said and done — worked pretty well. He reacted to what he saw as obvious expansion plans by NATO and the EU in Ukraine. He considers the Euromaidan revolution a coup — a view that doesn't seem too unreasonable if one considers the actions of Washington, Paris and Berlin without emotion and concentrates on the known facts."
versus
"Unfortunately, Putin’s initial strategy worked well. "
Your article is complete US empire propagandist nonsense.
Kiev began the war in 2014 by attacking Donbas, under direction of US operative Victoria Nuland and the CIA, following a US backed coup in 2014 in which Ukrainian neo-Nazis were used (much as the US used Muslim extremists in Afghanistan) to run the military action.
Crimea was transferred back to Russia by a peaceful vote of its majority Russian population who refused to be ruled by a Nazi controlled government in Kiev which literally attempted to ban use of the Russian language in Ukraine.
Below is the link to a *factual* report on how the war was started and then proceeded in Ukraine, by a reporter who actually does unbiased, objective and diligent research and fact checking before publishing. Be sure to follow the reference links at the end of the article to get the full picture of the history, from the Obama administration to today.
"Why Are *Both* Republicans & Democrats Lying About Russia?"
https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/why-are-both-republicans-and-democrats
You are free to disagree with me on anything I write, that's completely fair.
I do not appreciate the insults, however. I am a journalist by trade and calling my writing "propagandist nonsense" is about the worst thing you could do to a professional in this trade. I don't mind personal insults, but I won't have you libeling my work. Especially if you do it to promote yourself. Consider this your first and only warning. If you do this again, you will be blocked and all everything you wrote will be deleted. I take pride in my work and will not have some moron discredit it with nonsense just to push his own agenda.
Words like 'nonsense' and my admonition on your unacceptable lack of research, are strong criticisms, not 'insults'. I don't suffer foolishness.
Hey, I like both you guys, so no need for friction. More important than personals is the argument. Fabian, did you read Eric's post?
No. And I'm not going to. He introduced himself by throwing the worst insult my way I can pretty much imagine for someone in my profession. This relationship is over before it began.
Words like 'nonsense' and my admonition on your unacceptable lack of research, are strong criticisms, not 'insults'.
If you are insulted, that's an indication of embarrassment (which is exactly what you should be feeling after posting something so poorly researched on such a deadly serious subject).
And of course you are not going to read it, because you are more interested in retaining your own ideological biases than in learning the truth.
It's worth reading. PS: I follow you both.
Self-promotion may often be a curse, but its not that when one has constructed an argument. You both have track records outside of substack, but here you only have 100+ subscribers so please consider that marketing isn't the goal.
I also say that hoping you had read mine. And I'm definitely not boosting my substack. After the 24th, I will rarely post or comment to ensure I don't make this social media, and to write better.
An interesting opinion, though I consider the coup in Maidan to have been an action of war against Russia. I am hoping that the war ends far sooner. Sometimes unravelling happens quickly.
Well, speaking as someone who's spent way too much time in university studying these things, you technically can't have an act of war outside your own sovereign territory that doesn't involve your citizens or military assets. Even the Nord Stream attack would be debatable as an act of war against Germany. It was German critical infrastructure, but the attack happened outside of German territorial waters. And even if your military was attacked, it's hard to justify this as an act of war if you had no business being there (the issue in question in the original Gulf of Tonkin incident). So no, from the view of accepted standards in international relations, Putin was the clear aggressor in both 2014 and 2022.
Technically sound but 'semantical'. A dictionary argument doesn't take into account realism. The results of not responding to U.S. provocation would have lead to the further disadvantage of Russia. If you know someone is sharpening a knife to kill you, it makes sense to take the knife. And, in the greater context, we cannot ignore the violent overseas history of the U.S.
Separately, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and fiction shouldn't be an example. Vietnam was not next to the U.S. and had no history with it. Plus the US fired first, and it was the fictitious second incident that was weaponised. 'Fog of War' is one of the best documentaries I've seen. McNamara (spelling?) was an arsehole.
https://mikehampton.substack.com/p/03-putin-isnt-the-only-monster-in
It is not a dictionary argument. There is well-established consensus on what constitutes an act of war in historical science, going all the way back to the 19th century. You can use the word to mean something else, fair enough, but you won't be using scientifically accurate language at that point. And I always endeavour to do that. Out of clarity for my readers at the very least.
I was also takking about the ORIGINAL Gulf of Tonkin incident. Not the follow-up that was invented. The whole thing was a scandal precisely because the first incident didn't constitute an act of war (as I explained) and the second one that would have was made up. It is thus a good example of why attacking a foreign military is not always an act of war (namely if the foreign military is itself breaking treaties or violating sovereign or international territory).
PS: NordStream is 51% owned by Russia. Not to mention loss of revenue.
What does that have to do with my act of war argument? As I said, probably a stretch to call it an act of war against Germany. It would have been an act of war against Denmark had it been in their territorial waters, though. Who owns the pipeline doesn't really matter. Infraction on a country's territory or destroying important assets to that country is what counts, I would think.
My point is that it was an important asset.
Does "historical science" erase proxy wars?
Historical science surely lends to dictionary definitions, and definitions are open to interpretation e.g. Oxford's "An act by one nation intended to initiate or provoke a war with another nation; an act considered sufficient cause for war."
Sun Tzu would likely have been a realist when faced with a historical foe building up a neighbouring state.
Let's go bigger picture. Do you or don't you believe that the USA was provoking war? If not, what do you see the USA's role in Ukraine as, before 2022. Maybe that would improve our argument.
How did you get the idea that I am of the opinion that the US wasn't provoking a war? I have said (in podcast episodes and in writing) many times that my understanding of the situation is that the NATO expansion (at the behest of the US) and attempts to integrate Ukraine in the EU (which the US at least condoned) where a clear provocation. I am not sure this should be seen as a provocation to war, but I have said many times that I can see the Russian viewpoint in understanding it as such.
On the other hand, as I understand it, US foreign policy under Obama influenced Ukraine not to go to all-out war after the invasion of Crimea in 2014. So, at least of a period of time, the US was clearly de-escalating the situation to not have all-out war break out.
I asked the last part because some of your thoughts seemed at odd with each other e.g.,
"The simple fact of the matter is that Vladimir Putin enacted a cold hearted and brutal plan that — when all is said and done — worked pretty well. He reacted to what he saw as obvious expansion plans by NATO and the EU in Ukraine. He considers the Euromaidan revolution a coup — a view that doesn't seem too unreasonable if one considers the actions of Washington, Paris and Berlin without emotion and concentrates on the known facts."
versus
"Unfortunately, Putin’s initial strategy worked well. "
He responded to a threat well.