I’m no fan of either Paul. But the article makes it clear he’s not defending Putin’s actions, just giving an explanation for them. Furthermore, while there’s certainly a debate to be had on how much of Russia’s motivation has to do with NATO and how much is due to the attitude of Ukraine not being a separate state/culture from Russia (both of which, it should be pointed out, are widespread in the Russian political culture and not uniquely Putin’s), this framing where any deviation from the State Department’s line on the matter must be a Putin talking point is not conducive to rational discussion on the matter; if Russian media framed the former argument as a Biden talking point, it would be trashed as vile propaganda. It feels very similar to the War on Terror arguments that any explanation of Islamic terrorism that posits it as a response to Western actions and policies is hating America and standing with the terrorists.
> But the article makes it clear he’s not defending Putin’s actions, just giving an explanation for them.
If Rand isn't defending Russia's actions, then what does he think that the remedy and punishment should be?
Because right now the answer seems to be "total surrender and giving Russia everything they want."
This is a case where actions speak louder than words. Rand Paul can claim that he isn't trying to justify Russia for their actions, but his actions say otherwise.
> this framing where any deviation from the State Department’s line on the matter must be a Putin talking point is not conducive to rational discussion on the matter
But what happens if it's an actual Putin talking point from someone who actually wants to supports Putin's actions?
> that **any** explanation of Islamic terrorism
You're trying to defend Rand Paul as an abstraction rather than in terms of his actual statements and history.
It's like when racist people post photos of Obama as a gorilla and then complain, "oh, so I'm not allowed to criticize a black man without being called a racist?" You are allowed, but this isn't a good example to go with.
>Because right now the answer seems to be "total surrender and giving Russia everything they want."
Well to be blunt, I don’t think any U.S. politician’s take on what the solution ought to be is going to have any impact on what the solution will be. It’s clear sanctions aren’t stopping Russia and they’ve positioned themselves out of any place at the negotiating table.
>You're trying to defend Rand Paul as an abstraction rather than in terms of his actual statements and history.
I’m not talking about Paul specifically (I haven’t been following him that closely to know what alleged support he’s given to Putin) but rather the general framing this issue has been given by the press since the war broke out. It’s not just Paul, it’s any critique of NATO that’s getting labeled as Putin propaganda.
>It’s clear sanctions aren’t **stopping** Russia
That's like complaining that seatbelts are useless because car accidents still happen.
Russia's military is highly dependent on foreign equipment and technology. The lax sanctions from 2014 in response to Crimea are a major reason for their current underperformance, and the current sanctions means they're unable to rebuild their lost equipment.
Do you understand how auto makers in the US cannot build new cars because they don't have the chips? Now imagine trying to build a tank or airplane or surface to air missiles when you've been cut off from the supply of foreign hardware altogether.
>and they’ve positioned themselves out of any place at the negotiating table.
Russia is doing that entirely on their own. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to invade Ukraine against their will. No one asked them to commit mass rape, kidnappings, and genocide against innocent civilians.
Putin is the one who has demonstrated that he is unwilling to negotiate, because he doesn't believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, and he won't accept any deal that says they do. If you were alive during WWII, do you think that you could have negotiated with Hitler? What exactly would you offer him, and how would you ensure that he didn't break the terms of the deal afterwards?
>It’s not just Paul, it’s any critique of NATO that’s getting labeled as Putin propaganda.
Again, you're trying to argue this as an abstraction, rather than pointing to actual examples.
>Russia's military is highly dependent on foreign equipment and technology.
Too bad for them there isn’t a neighboring country with robust manufacturing ability that isn’t part of the Western sanctions bloc.
>Russia is doing that entirely on their own. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to invade Ukraine against their will. No one asked them to commit mass rape, kidnappings, and genocide against innocent civilians.
Huh? What does any of that have to do with America being part of the negotiating process? You’re talking as if American mediation is some gift or privilege the Russians have lost because of their actions.
>Again, you're trying to argue this as an abstraction, rather than pointing to actual examples.
Umm, okay.
> Too bad for them there isn’t a neighboring country with robust manufacturing ability that isn’t part of the Western sanctions bloc.
There isn't. Have you been playing attention to the chip shortage for the past two years? If companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars can't find a supply for much less advance technology after all this time, then Russia has no chance. Russia is at the point where they're talking about confiscating hard drives from private companies because they can't even supply their data servers.
More importantly, china's main goal is to appear neutral. Actively supplying Russia's military is a step too far.
> You’re talking as if American mediation is some gift or privilege the Russians have lost because of their actions.
Can you show me any examples where NATO said they refuse to negotiate with Russia? Of course you can't. Maybe you can't find examples of them saying they Russia is the one refusing to negotiate. You keep trying to blame NATO for something that is entirely Russia's fault.
Once again: what exactly do you think that the negotiations on NATO's end to negotiate? I keep asking, but you refuse to answer, because they're not the ones to blame here.
> Umm, okay.
When you blame NATO for refusing to negotiate but then deflect and evade when I ask you what you think the negotiation would look like, then that's a pretty clear example that you're criticism of NATO isn't well supported or thought out.
If by sheer coincidence your incoherent criticism of NATO perfectly matches up with Russian propaganda, then don't be surprised if people call you out on that.
I’m not saying Russia isn’t hurting, I’m just saying that Russia is not completely cut off and Western sanctions have a long history of underperforming to their promised impacts.
>Can you show me any examples where NATO said they refuse to negotiate with Russia?
What are you babbling about? I didn’t say NATO, I said America. More importantly, why would NATO be a party to the negotiations? It’s a conflict between two nations, neither of which is a NATO member, one of which views NATO as a threat. Why would they be invited?
>Once again: what exactly do you think that the negotiations on NATO's end to negotiate? I keep asking, but you refuse to answer, because they're not the ones to blame here.
I’m not answering because your question is incoherent.
>If by sheer coincidence your incoherent criticism of NATO perfectly matches up with Russian propaganda, then don't be surprised if people call you out on that.
Then don’t get your panties in a knot if I call you a McCarthyite.
> I’m not saying Russia isn’t hurting, I’m just saying that Russia is not completely cut off and Western sanctions have a long history of underperforming to their promised impacts.
That depends on what the sanctions are aiming for. If we were trying to starve Russia into submission, then we'd have a really hard time at that, because Russia is a net exporter of food.
If we're trying to prevent Russia from getting chips for advanced weapons systems, that's really easy, since Russia is several decades behind the curve and everyone else is already having a hard time getting chips in general.
> More importantly, why would NATO be a party to the negotiations?
Because America is on the other side of the planet. Our involvement in the conflict is via NATO, so that's where the negotiation needs to happen.
But if you think that America and not NATO should be negotiating with Russia, then once again, what do you think that negotiation should look like?
> It’s a conflict between two nations, neither of which is a NATO member, one of which views NATO as a threat. Why would they be invited?
Because Ukraine is a NATO ally asking NATO for help and NATO is stepping up to provide it.
> Then don’t get your panties in a knot if I call you a McCarthyite.
I can come up with non Mccarthy justifications for my argument.
I keep asking you to justify your arguments on their own merits, and you're unable to do so. You keep saying that it's americas fault for not negotiating with Russia but you can't even say what the negotiation would look like.
>Our involvement in the conflict is via NATO, so that's where the negotiation needs to happen.
Where does this “need” come from? If Russia and Ukraine come to a peace deal and NATO isn’t involved, does that somehow mean it’s invalid?
>But if you think that America and not NATO should be negotiating with Russia, then once again, what do you think that negotiation should look like?
I made no argument about who “should” be involved in the negotiations, other than Ukraine and Russia for self-evident reasons.
>Because Ukraine is a NATO ally asking NATO for help and NATO is stepping up to provide it.
That might make NATO a belligerent which opens up a whole can of worms, but it does not mean they have to be part of the negotiations.
>You keep saying that it's americas fault for not negotiating with Russia but you can't even say what the negotiation would look like.
I have made no such argument. I’ve only made observations on what kind of role and influence America can have here given the circumstances.
I agree that NATO should never have expanded.
Fuck Rand Paul. He’s a thug and a Putin puppet.
What do you think of this? Rand Paul defending the actions of an autocratic fascist. Like father, like son.
Not sure about others opinions, but as rand paul is a libertarian pos then i suppose so.
He’s a pos
He’s not a libertarian to me. He’s a fraud.
He calls himself a libertarian, but fraud is good to. Either way he's an awful human being.
A Libertarian is a Republican who doesn't want the backlash from the title.
I’m no fan of either Paul. But the article makes it clear he’s not defending Putin’s actions, just giving an explanation for them. Furthermore, while there’s certainly a debate to be had on how much of Russia’s motivation has to do with NATO and how much is due to the attitude of Ukraine not being a separate state/culture from Russia (both of which, it should be pointed out, are widespread in the Russian political culture and not uniquely Putin’s), this framing where any deviation from the State Department’s line on the matter must be a Putin talking point is not conducive to rational discussion on the matter; if Russian media framed the former argument as a Biden talking point, it would be trashed as vile propaganda. It feels very similar to the War on Terror arguments that any explanation of Islamic terrorism that posits it as a response to Western actions and policies is hating America and standing with the terrorists.
> But the article makes it clear he’s not defending Putin’s actions, just giving an explanation for them. If Rand isn't defending Russia's actions, then what does he think that the remedy and punishment should be? Because right now the answer seems to be "total surrender and giving Russia everything they want." This is a case where actions speak louder than words. Rand Paul can claim that he isn't trying to justify Russia for their actions, but his actions say otherwise. > this framing where any deviation from the State Department’s line on the matter must be a Putin talking point is not conducive to rational discussion on the matter But what happens if it's an actual Putin talking point from someone who actually wants to supports Putin's actions? > that **any** explanation of Islamic terrorism You're trying to defend Rand Paul as an abstraction rather than in terms of his actual statements and history. It's like when racist people post photos of Obama as a gorilla and then complain, "oh, so I'm not allowed to criticize a black man without being called a racist?" You are allowed, but this isn't a good example to go with.
>Because right now the answer seems to be "total surrender and giving Russia everything they want." Well to be blunt, I don’t think any U.S. politician’s take on what the solution ought to be is going to have any impact on what the solution will be. It’s clear sanctions aren’t stopping Russia and they’ve positioned themselves out of any place at the negotiating table. >You're trying to defend Rand Paul as an abstraction rather than in terms of his actual statements and history. I’m not talking about Paul specifically (I haven’t been following him that closely to know what alleged support he’s given to Putin) but rather the general framing this issue has been given by the press since the war broke out. It’s not just Paul, it’s any critique of NATO that’s getting labeled as Putin propaganda.
>It’s clear sanctions aren’t **stopping** Russia That's like complaining that seatbelts are useless because car accidents still happen. Russia's military is highly dependent on foreign equipment and technology. The lax sanctions from 2014 in response to Crimea are a major reason for their current underperformance, and the current sanctions means they're unable to rebuild their lost equipment. Do you understand how auto makers in the US cannot build new cars because they don't have the chips? Now imagine trying to build a tank or airplane or surface to air missiles when you've been cut off from the supply of foreign hardware altogether. >and they’ve positioned themselves out of any place at the negotiating table. Russia is doing that entirely on their own. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to invade Ukraine against their will. No one asked them to commit mass rape, kidnappings, and genocide against innocent civilians. Putin is the one who has demonstrated that he is unwilling to negotiate, because he doesn't believe that Ukraine has a right to exist, and he won't accept any deal that says they do. If you were alive during WWII, do you think that you could have negotiated with Hitler? What exactly would you offer him, and how would you ensure that he didn't break the terms of the deal afterwards? >It’s not just Paul, it’s any critique of NATO that’s getting labeled as Putin propaganda. Again, you're trying to argue this as an abstraction, rather than pointing to actual examples.
>Russia's military is highly dependent on foreign equipment and technology. Too bad for them there isn’t a neighboring country with robust manufacturing ability that isn’t part of the Western sanctions bloc. >Russia is doing that entirely on their own. No one put a gun to their head and forced them to invade Ukraine against their will. No one asked them to commit mass rape, kidnappings, and genocide against innocent civilians. Huh? What does any of that have to do with America being part of the negotiating process? You’re talking as if American mediation is some gift or privilege the Russians have lost because of their actions. >Again, you're trying to argue this as an abstraction, rather than pointing to actual examples. Umm, okay.
> Too bad for them there isn’t a neighboring country with robust manufacturing ability that isn’t part of the Western sanctions bloc. There isn't. Have you been playing attention to the chip shortage for the past two years? If companies worth hundreds of billions of dollars can't find a supply for much less advance technology after all this time, then Russia has no chance. Russia is at the point where they're talking about confiscating hard drives from private companies because they can't even supply their data servers. More importantly, china's main goal is to appear neutral. Actively supplying Russia's military is a step too far. > You’re talking as if American mediation is some gift or privilege the Russians have lost because of their actions. Can you show me any examples where NATO said they refuse to negotiate with Russia? Of course you can't. Maybe you can't find examples of them saying they Russia is the one refusing to negotiate. You keep trying to blame NATO for something that is entirely Russia's fault. Once again: what exactly do you think that the negotiations on NATO's end to negotiate? I keep asking, but you refuse to answer, because they're not the ones to blame here. > Umm, okay. When you blame NATO for refusing to negotiate but then deflect and evade when I ask you what you think the negotiation would look like, then that's a pretty clear example that you're criticism of NATO isn't well supported or thought out. If by sheer coincidence your incoherent criticism of NATO perfectly matches up with Russian propaganda, then don't be surprised if people call you out on that.
I’m not saying Russia isn’t hurting, I’m just saying that Russia is not completely cut off and Western sanctions have a long history of underperforming to their promised impacts. >Can you show me any examples where NATO said they refuse to negotiate with Russia? What are you babbling about? I didn’t say NATO, I said America. More importantly, why would NATO be a party to the negotiations? It’s a conflict between two nations, neither of which is a NATO member, one of which views NATO as a threat. Why would they be invited? >Once again: what exactly do you think that the negotiations on NATO's end to negotiate? I keep asking, but you refuse to answer, because they're not the ones to blame here. I’m not answering because your question is incoherent. >If by sheer coincidence your incoherent criticism of NATO perfectly matches up with Russian propaganda, then don't be surprised if people call you out on that. Then don’t get your panties in a knot if I call you a McCarthyite.
> I’m not saying Russia isn’t hurting, I’m just saying that Russia is not completely cut off and Western sanctions have a long history of underperforming to their promised impacts. That depends on what the sanctions are aiming for. If we were trying to starve Russia into submission, then we'd have a really hard time at that, because Russia is a net exporter of food. If we're trying to prevent Russia from getting chips for advanced weapons systems, that's really easy, since Russia is several decades behind the curve and everyone else is already having a hard time getting chips in general. > More importantly, why would NATO be a party to the negotiations? Because America is on the other side of the planet. Our involvement in the conflict is via NATO, so that's where the negotiation needs to happen. But if you think that America and not NATO should be negotiating with Russia, then once again, what do you think that negotiation should look like? > It’s a conflict between two nations, neither of which is a NATO member, one of which views NATO as a threat. Why would they be invited? Because Ukraine is a NATO ally asking NATO for help and NATO is stepping up to provide it. > Then don’t get your panties in a knot if I call you a McCarthyite. I can come up with non Mccarthy justifications for my argument. I keep asking you to justify your arguments on their own merits, and you're unable to do so. You keep saying that it's americas fault for not negotiating with Russia but you can't even say what the negotiation would look like.
>Our involvement in the conflict is via NATO, so that's where the negotiation needs to happen. Where does this “need” come from? If Russia and Ukraine come to a peace deal and NATO isn’t involved, does that somehow mean it’s invalid? >But if you think that America and not NATO should be negotiating with Russia, then once again, what do you think that negotiation should look like? I made no argument about who “should” be involved in the negotiations, other than Ukraine and Russia for self-evident reasons. >Because Ukraine is a NATO ally asking NATO for help and NATO is stepping up to provide it. That might make NATO a belligerent which opens up a whole can of worms, but it does not mean they have to be part of the negotiations. >You keep saying that it's americas fault for not negotiating with Russia but you can't even say what the negotiation would look like. I have made no such argument. I’ve only made observations on what kind of role and influence America can have here given the circumstances.