[throwawaymedia]

I do not support Russia. But I do understand why Russia is doing what they are doing. There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict. I do strongly support the idea that the US is the core issue here. Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account. I have more than 15 YoE and work at Google–pay a shit ton of taxes due to a sky-high FAANG compensations. The US is the sole coordinator of this war and my taxes go towards sponsoring the war. That is why I'm angry.

[piva00]

> There is a logical chain of events that led to the conflict.

No, there's theorising by John Mearsheimer which you subscribe to. It's an ideology of realpolitik/offensive realism, I've read it, I've watched it, I know what you mean and that's just a take, a view on the situation, please be mindful of that.

Or even worse, you are subscribing to Putinism, you are validating Putin. And saying you are Ukrainian, what the actual fuck? Stop hiding behind that throw away and deceiving us, like I told you before: it's boring and tiresome.

And still, you don't fucking expand anywhere on your "logical sequence of events". I asked before for you to expand on it and you didn't do it. Worse, you tried using that bizarre sequence of pseudo-rhetorical questions to drive no argument in the end. You are not participating in any discussion...

> Unfortunately, the US is not a free speech country. I'm not allowed to share "incorrect" opinion, which is why I use a throwaway account.

What the actual fuck? You're absolutely free to say whatever you want, you aren't free of the consequences of said speech.

You are not being persecuted, your views are, accept that just like I accept mine to be challenged and do not hide behind a throw away like a coward.

Like, you don't even comprehend what free speech actually means and think you are equipped enough to have not only a political opinion that's being regurgitated from somewhere else, but also that this opinion is the holier than thou one, where it's better because you thought of it. When you didn't even came up with your reasoning, you are copycatting it and not even completely because you can't even start to expose your argumentation.

Get off your high horse, you are being incredibly shallow in your argumentation. I don't care how much taxes you pay, or that you work at some Google-like place with Google-like pay, none of that is even close to relevant to any of the arguments you are trying to shove into this discussion...

Are you angry that your taxes go to war? Boo-fucking-hoo, you live in the US, you chose to continue living there due to higher paying salaries and so on, for that you need to also accept the other facet of your country: it's a hyper-militaristic power and due to that you have the privilege of being well paid, your taxes are funding exactly what enables the US to be the superpower it is.

You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you live in the US your taxes will very likely always be funding some war.

And you are angry about funding a war against an oppressor? Against a regime explicitly calling for the genocide against the people of Ukraine? A state explicitly saying that another state doesn't exist and trying to annex it. Against a real adversary of your country, which has been bled dry by peanuts of spending. That's fucking rich... It's one of the best investments your country has done for its own foreign policy. That's probably one of the wars where the US is actually on the good side of it, fighting for what's morally right.

Seriously look inside yourself and what you are spewing, it makes absolutely no logical sense that you hold all these views at the same time, it's a hodge-podge of idiotic reasoning. And it's disgusting.

I thought FAANG was supposed to hire mostly smart people, guess I was wrong.

[throwawaymedia]

> No, there's theorising by John Mearsheimer which you subscribe to. It's an ideology of realpolitik/offensive realism, I've read it, I've watched it, I know what you mean and that's just a take, a view on the situation, please be mindful of that.

It's _not_ only Mearsheimer, but aside from that, why is this view incorrect?

> Or even worse, you are subscribing to Putinism, you are validating Putin.

What if Putin is not lying? There is a mathematical chance that the so called "propaganda" is actually an uncomfortable truth for an average Joe living outside of Russia.

> I asked before for you to expand on it and you didn't do it.

I did. Read my other comment.

> Worse, you tried using that bizarre sequence of pseudo-rhetorical questions to drive no argument in the end. You are not participating in any discussion...

WTF? I brought up straight _facts_. Did you read my comment? 1991 -> 2007 -> 2008 -> Crimea -> etc. What's not clear?

> You're absolutely free to say whatever you want

No, I'm not. Example: BLM is a hoax. The BLM leaders purchased a shit ton of real estate in Manhattan. $200,000 were spent on clubs and prostitutes (see IRS filings). I can't say that in public. I'll be cancelled and my career is done within minutes.

> Boo-fucking-hoo, you live in the US, you chose to continue living there due to higher paying salaries and so on

I chose to live here because my kids were born here. I actually thought of moving back to Ukraine (before the war). I love my country, I lived there for 30 years, but its corruption is so high that I decided to punt that decision. Later, when I helped Ukrainians with aid, I received a _direct_ phone call on my cell phone from one of the organizations telling me that if I keep sending aid to Ukraine, they'll find me in the US and the conversation will be different. I got that call from Lviv.

> You can't have the cake and eat it too. If you live in the US your taxes will very likely always be funding some war.

Isn't that exactly why the war is happening in Ukraine? The US needs its military bases around the world to have a leverage. How hard is that to understand?

> Seriously look inside yourself and what you are spewing, it makes absolutely no logical sense that you hold all these views at the same time, it's a hodge-podge of idiotic reasoning. And it's disgusting.

The reason why I won't is because I always question any decisions irrespective whether they were made by the US or Russian leaders. Both parties have an opportunity to lie. Historically, there was a shit ton of lies against Russia. All these lies, again, according to the history, were pretty much always benefiting the US––not to save lives or promote democracy and throw rainbows around the world.

Let's imagine what Putin is saying is truth. Work backwards from that.

Now image the US is telling the truth. Work backwards from that.

The two paths outlined above will give you a picture in which the US is the sole reason of all the shit that is happening today. Dive fucking deeper. DO NOT READ NYT/CNN/WAPO. Look at the freaking historical facts and make your own conclusion.

You might call me a conspiracy theorist, but I mind you - there are endless number of conspiracy theories that end up being true. Never trust mass media - I worked in the largest mass media agency in NY - they are fucking driven by ad revenue only - there is zero trust. That is obviously a whole separate topic.

Your views are the US propaganda. How cool is that?

[piva00]

I'm exhausted, you live in a fantasy land of post-modernism where the truth can be anything, I really don't know what to say to you except for "bless your heart and farewell". Because, really, there's nothing I can actually say that will change your mind at all, you are subscribed to this world view and that's it, you're a follower and true-believer in it.

Just think about the type of government that Putin and the Kremlin currently are, do you believe this is a good moral standpoint? If so, good luck, if not, then question the fucking propaganda you've been eating.

I'm not from the US, I come from a country that the USA fucked over for decades, the US fostered a dictatorship in my country that killed one of my uncles, it's a country directly under the US sphere of influence because it's in South America, I have all the personal reasons to just hate the USA and go against its propaganda.

And I still can see how, from a moral standpoint, Russia is wrong here. No matter what comes from 1991, 2007, 2008, they fucked up, they are trying to annex neighbours and their regime doesn't care about human rights or anything that I stand for. Stuff that I hope you don't stand for either.

Defending Russia in this is defending Putin's and the Kremlin's morals, if you do you are completely fucked in the head, dude.

Bless your heart and farewell, you are just too far gone. I'm too old to have to keep fighting bullshit, it just takes too much to go around finding sources and giving you other points of view when you can just simply write whatever is living inside your head, bullshit is just too hard to combat. Unfortunately.

Your morals are rotten, I don't think we can really start having a proper conversation when our code of ethics is so different. You believe that in the 21st century it's justified for a country to invade a neighbour, that's absolutely fucked up to me.

Edit:

On this:

>> You're absolutely free to say whatever you want

> No, I'm not. Example: BLM is a hoax. The BLM leaders purchased a shit ton of real estate in Manhattan. $200,000 were spent on clubs and prostitutes (see IRS filings). I can't say that in public. I'll be cancelled and my career is done within minutes.

Yes, you are free to say whatever the fuck you want. What you want is having no consequences for the shit you say. The government is not gonna persecute you for it, society probably won't take it lightly but if you have a way to actually back it up with facts then you'll very likely even get some followers.

Do you have the data? The cold hard facts to say that BLM is a hoax? Did you do the investigation and have the threads to back this up? If you do, share it with the world, if you don't then you are just "believing" in it because of some tenuous connection and of course that people will frown at you. No one has to listen to all the crazies someone believe or thinks of but definitely some people will listen if you can expose it.

Because I will not go looking for IRS fillings, you have to show it, you are the one with extraordinary claims, it requires extraordinary evidence, not a call to "do your reserarch, sheeple", that's just fucking dumb.

[throwawaymedia]

You are exhausted, but you still haven't answered my question.

Why is J. Mearsheimer's reasoning incorrect, but yours is correct? He is a political scientist with decades of experience.

Here is one more from CATO Institute : https://www.cato.org/commentary/washington-helped-trigger-uk...

So, you are telling me all these people are "fucking dumb" (using your terminology) and all of that is Russian propaganda?

[piva00]

Why is only Mearsheimer's reasoning correct and the one you subscribe to? You are ignoring a plethora of other political scientists, because you've subscribed to his ideas. That's why you are fucking stupid.

Mearsheimer has as his political philosophy his own offensive realism theory, where great powers only act only on their desires to become hegemonies, that's why I believe he is not entirely correct (not fucking stupid as you) on his take on Russia, there's more at play than just this real politik of offensive realism.

I don't think that great powers will only act to achieve hegemony (as does a number of other political scientists that aren't Mearsheimer). And if those powers do, we carrying the values of human dignity and rights believe that nations shouldn't annex other nations in the 21st century and so it doesn't matter that by offensive realism he states that Russia is correct, morally Russia is wrong and we judge the actions of nations by this morality.

He has developed this theory and so has to be the main supporter of it, and the real believer in it. It doesn't make it true because he has decades of political science studies. People like Herman Lundborg studied medicine and developed a theory where he stated some people of a specific skin colour were genetically better than another set of people of a different skin colour, he studied it for decades, doesn't make him right.

You didn't answer: where does your morality take you? You are not answering any of my prompts and focusing on one aspect to try to focus my attention into it, stop this bullshit and answer: what are your morals? Do you align yourself with Putin's morals? Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century? Do you believe it's right for the government of a country to call for the annihilation of a different nation?

CATO Institute is something that I would not touch with a 10m pole, you are agreeing with the think tank backed by Charles Koch, I hope I don't have to expand much on that after naming him. Yes, CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)

So yes, I'm exhausted, you are a coward hiding behind a throwaway and throwing dumb shit around, that's life I guess.

And again, stop running away from my morality questions, fucking coward.

[throwawaymedia]

I support Mearsheimer's reasoning because there is a logic behind it. There are no scientists that would provide an opposite reasoning as logical as the Mearsheimer's one.

> CATO Institute is fucking dumb :)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?

I do not support wars. But you can't ask a question like that. It doesn't make sense.

War is a mechanism for dispute resolution. Yes, we, people, don't like such mechanisms. But such is the life. These mechanisms are used by the US all the time. The US shows the world that this mechanism can be used. So, the US can, but Russia can't? It doesn't even matter whether it's Russia or any other country.

In the case of Russian-Ukrainian war, the dispute that the war is trying to resolve comes from the expansion of NATO and military bases next to the Russian borders. No expansion -> no war.

> Do you believe it's right for a country to invade a neighbouring country in the 21st century?

It doesn't matter which century we are in. The society hasn't reached a state in which a fairly complex dispute can be resolved without a war. Right now there is no state in which war is an impossible option. To make it more clear, for example, we are in a state in which the humanity cannot travel with the speed of light. We are simply not there yet. When it comes to wars, we are in state in which a war is a possibility.

When Putin asked the US (early 2000s) why NATO is expanding, they just mumbled some bullshit in response. How can military bases across the world create peace? You can't create peace by throwing weapon around the world. There will always be someone who won't like it.

The US should've take Putin more seriously in the first place, but they kept belittling his requests to stop the expansion for 15+ years.