Gaetz Tells Bolling Russia Would Be Better NATO Member Than Ukraine: ‘Probably Provides More Benefit Long-Term’

Flying Squid@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 244 points –
Gaetz Tells Bolling Russia Would Be Better NATO Member Than Ukraine: ‘Probably Provides More Benefit Long-Term’
mediaite.com
91

You are viewing a single comment

I thought you were being intentionally obtuse but I see what you mean. Ukraine might not be a NATO member (yet), but that doesn't mean that NATO wants Russia grabbing land from democracies that act as a buffer between them and Russia.

I'll be entirely honest, I don't think NATO will accept the Ukraine at all. I think NATO saw an opportunity to fuel a proxy war against Russia, and after they win the Ukraine will receive some aid and be left to their own devices. There's nothing about the situation that leads me to believe anything else other than NATO using the war as an excuse to further their imperial interests. Right now the excuse is the war. When the war is over, there will be a different excuse; perhaps it will be "not until the country is rebuilt".

'the ukraine' was dropped over 30 years ago. Nato Imperialism? i see you.

I don't know what you mean. I use 'ukraine' and 'the ukraine' interchangeably for better sentence flow. That's like getting upset over someone saying 'the us'.

Yea, i dont believe you at all since you also go with Nato Imperialism and ignored that.

“Ukraine is a country,” says William Taylor, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine from 2006 to 2009. “The Ukraine is the way the Russians referred to that part of the country during Soviet times … Now that it is a country, a nation, and a recognized state, it is just Ukraine. And it is incorrect to refer to the Ukraine, even though a lot of people do it.”

I see you.

I actually didn't know that. I'd never even heard of that before. I chose to not acknowledge you mentioning my mention of NATO imperialism because I had no clue by what you meant. NATO and the imperial core are basically the same thing. If you're trying to pretend that the military aid given to Ukraine isn't imperialist power, then I don't know what to say.

By 'I see you', do you mean that I'm a leftist? Because, well, yea. I was attracted to lemmy the moment I learned about it because of leftist principles like the anarchical nature of the fediverse and the rejection of private property through FOSS.

Probably shouldn't have any strong opinions on any subject in this thread if you don't even know the basic language of the issue. This is called being a know-nothing.

I wasn't aware that I needed to know all of the language politics to talk about an issue. I'm well aware of the situation. Using a phrase I didn't know was contentious doesn't mean I don't know anything.

If you're being honest here you should know that the way you are speaking about these topics is very Russocentric. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt but it makes me wonder about your news diet. I understand why people think you might be acting in bad faith.

I appreciate your good faith approach. I can see how what I'm saying could be seen that way, and I wish more people would approach these conversations the way you did instead of how the other folks below have so they could get the perspective.

To use good guy bad guy terms, Russia is the bad guy in this war. The good guys are the Ukrainians. However, that doesn't mean NATO supplying the good guys also makes them the good guys; it's a convergence of interests. I'm trying to get people to stop seeing Russia as the continuation of the USSR, because they aren't. The USSR no longer exists, and the Russian Federation is a different country with a different economy and different interests. Trying to conflate them is like apples and oranges: it can be done, but it's not helpful.

Now you know. Be serious or stay quiet.

Pedantry over the use of the word "the" is the most bullshit, liberal shit I think I've seen all week. Are you being serious? We need to start referring to this country as United States because it doesn't belong to anyone, right? Should we ditch that old method of referring to the Puerto Rico which implied it was independent? What use is the word 'the' if English articles are policed in the manner you're trying to do?

You should probably just have stayed in school and maybe you'd have covered this.

Oh got it, you aren't a serious person. That's good to know. I have a bachelor's degree in computer science, but whatever. Why don't you enlighten me then?

I'm not your dad or your teacher. Enlighten yourself. You can look this up and learn all about why nobody outside of Russian nationalists say "the Ukraine" anymore.

Idiotic take. Saying the Ukraine is to refer to Ukraine as a territory of Russia.

It isn't a territory. It is a country. The name of that country is Ukraine.

You don't say the Mexico or the Canada.

The name of the US is "United States of America". Note the lack of the word "the". Should we start referring to Puerto Rico as "the Puerto Rico" or to Guam as "the Guam" if the most used word in the English language denotes possession?