Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Well, of course Russia is very much an existential threat to us (which is why the people who want a no-fly zone over Ukraine are being stupid).

That is stupid, because it risks a rash act. But I do not think even the Russians are going to nuke the US. They might drop a tactical nuke in Ukraine. But nuking us would be the end of everything. Somebody shoots Putin before that happens.

I asked a question about the real world -- the relationship between Trump and Russia -- and you instead started talking about your criticism of the media.

That article was a just a rehash of every prior allegation rolled up into one screed. And it was weak sauce. Disinformation is not "meddling." It's a form of campaigning people have used since people have run for office. Anyone trying to call manipulation of the credulous a crime is missing the problem. The problem isn't the propagandist, but the moron who believes the propagandist. We have a lotta morons here.

That's clarifying. Instead of talking about what actually did happen involving Trump and Russia, e.g., see the Solnit article I linked to, you'd rather rebut some narrower set of claims about Trump's "control" over "collusion." You're not pro-Russia, and you're not really anti-anti-Trump, you're anti-media.

Why would you think I was pro-Russia? I am anti-media.

You asked if I changed my position on Trump's relationship with Russia because of the war. I said no. And then I clarified that my only position on Trump's relationship with Russia was that it was falsely characterized (by far more than just the media) as one in which Trump was proactive, as opposed to a manipulated asset.

Trump's relationship with Russia doesn't have much, if anything, to do with this war. As I said, Putin manipulating Trump was one device to protect Russia's sphere of influence, and this war is another.

I guess one could argue that if Trump were still in office the war actually would not have happened, as Putin wouldn't feel the need to use that chess move, as he'd still have the ability to manipulate Trump, which is a far less costly one.

I find it hard to have this conversation with you, because it's hard for me to tell what you're talking about or reacting to. It's less that you see "the media" saying things with which you disagree, and more that you have snorted some lines of Taibbi or Greenwald complaining about the media and you excitedly agree.

Russia sought to get influence with Trump by giving him stuff to help him get elected. He took that stuff, used it, and knowing he'd need a miracle to get re-elected, cozied up to Russia, hoping to get more stuff from them that'd help him. He also borrowed a ton of money from them. All of that has been exposed and acknowledged a million times. What am I supposed to say in response to a rehash of that?

At the risk of changing the subject to talk about the real world, I am extraordinarily disheartened by the war, even if it's clear that the Russian military initially underperformed. See this interview with Russia expert Fiona Hill in which she explains what Putin is trying to do. She also explains why she thinks Putin might use nuclear weapons, just to bring things back to the existential-threat issue.

Putin has lost his mind. This is the dumbest unforced error in the history of dictatorships. I still can't wrap my head around it, but there is a silver lining -- he's uniting a fractured West.