[gfosco]

Look I think you're missing the point. Chew on it for a bit, don't respond half-cocked.

You: I want do to X.

B: If you do X, I will do Y.

You can try to convince B not to do Y if you do X...

but if B is prepared to do Y, and is showing you he's prepared to do Y...

and you can't convince him not to...

then you have to consider, that if you continue trying to do X, that You are the one agitating.

[HWR_14]

Depending on what X and Y are, we condemn different actors. Agitating not really a word I would use for any pairing.

"Keep me from taking your purse" and "shoot you" we condemn B as a mugger.

"Leave me and meet someone new" and "shoot both of you" and we condemn B as a domestic abuser and potential murderer.

"Return a library book late" and "charge you $0.10 a day as a fine" and we condemn A lightly.

I would contend Russia's current actions fall squarely in the first two examples.

[gfosco]

Let's make your examples actually match the structure I set up. You've created some weird analogies that don't relate.

A: I want to take your purse.

B: If you take my purse, I will kill you.

If A continues to try and take the purse, A is obviously the agitator.

A: I want to leave you.

B: If you leave, I will kill you.

We agree B is a monster here, and this is a police matter, not global politics.

Maybe we can create a better example...

A: Hey B I want to nail your cousin.

B: I will not allow that to happen. Bro I will ruin your world. Literally, armageddon. Don't do it.

If A continues trying to nail the cousin, clearly the agitator.. no?

[HWR_14]

You flipped my first example. I said A said "I don't want to give you my purse" B says "give me your purse or I will shoot you".

And I like how the only example you can think of where the word "agitator" flows well is when someone is trying to stop two consenting adults from having sex. Because clearly the person B on your last example is an asshole who is wrong, and you're using "agitator" to just mean "willing to ignore overt threats"

I think your own weak example highlights how you know you're wrong on this issue.

[gfosco]

I flipped your first example because it doesn't relate to the situation we're talking about and what you were responding to.

B isn't trying to take something from A. A is trying to woo (something near B) and B is promising consequences.

It no longer has anything to do about who is right, or what is right... that black and white right and wrong are no longer relevant.

If B is willing to back up the claims, A has to seriously consider their choices.

It's pretty close to the same in my example with the cousin... It doesn't matter if B is an asshole or is wrong, what does that have to do with anything?

The funny thing is, I don't think I'm even taking a position on the actual argument... I just think there's so much narrative control that many aren't even capable of considering alternative explanations.

[shagmin]

The problem I have with this is it seems like you're arguing for might makes right. B is basically a bully and is making a choice for both parties then (B's way or war). Meanwhile I just don't want to be bullied or feel vulnerable to my bully neighbor.

[gfosco]

I'm not arguing in favor of might makes right, but global politics isn't simple and many of the players aren't rational or reasonable. I'm arguing for dealing with reality, and acknowledging reality. I don't have a strong position either way, to be honest, and I don't think really any of us know enough to be so confident.

[throwaway6734]

What are the X & Y in this situation?

Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum where they committed to respect Ukrainian borders and sovereignty with Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.