Something about this video strikes me the wrong way. Sure it sounds logical that the root of the issue is just a big battle over oil, but the way he cuts the video off so quickly after stating that, makes it sound like there is more to it that he isn't willing to discuss.
It just makes me think that he jumped to the easiest conclusion and went with it, without explaining much further than a simple "these guys are both bullshitting, and it's probably because of this". Guessing ulterior motives isn't something special that only a few with a keen eye can spot, and guessing the most probable motive, doesn't automatically mean it is the motive that is driving these major political powers.
As far as I see it, many of the western leaders are trying to find any kind of reason to denounce russia. You don't need to make up some complex oil conspiracy to explain this, and it especially can't be used as some blanket answer to cover all questions raised.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;44153039]Something about this video strikes me the wrong way. Sure it sounds logical that the root of the issue is just a big battle over oil, but the way he cuts the video off so quickly after stating that, makes it sound like there is more to it that he isn't willing to discuss.
It just makes me think that he jumped to the easiest conclusion and went with it, without explaining much further than a simple "these guys are both bullshitting, and it's probably because of this". Guessing ulterior motives isn't something special that only a few with a keen eye can spot, and guessing the most probable motive, doesn't automatically mean it is the motive that is driving these major political powers.
As far as I see it, many of the western leaders are trying to find any kind of reason to denounce russia. You don't need to make up some complex oil conspiracy to explain this, and it especially can't be used as some blanket answer to cover all questions raised.[/QUOTE]
yes let us discuss the presentation of the video more than the facts contained within
and an oil "conspiracy" isnt complex. Its obvious.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;44153039]Something about this video strikes me the wrong way. Sure it sounds logical that the root of the issue is just a big battle over oil, but the way he cuts the video off so quickly after stating that, makes it sound like there is more to it that he isn't willing to discuss.
It just makes me think that he jumped to the easiest conclusion and went with it, without explaining much further than a simple "these guys are both bullshitting, and it's probably because of this". Guessing ulterior motives isn't something special that only a few with a keen eye can spot, and guessing the most probable motive, doesn't automatically mean it is the motive that is driving these major political powers.
As far as I see it, many of the western leaders are trying to find any kind of reason to denounce russia. You don't need to make up some complex oil conspiracy to explain this, and it especially can't be used as some blanket answer to cover all questions raised.[/QUOTE]
The western leaders are denouncing Russia for invading Ukraine, they didn't "try to find a reason," they had a damn good one. The reason Ukraine is an issue at all is very blatantly because of the oil.
This guy's pseudo-conspiratorial take is poorly cited and dotted with fallacies throughout.
Of course the super powers are interested due to the natural resources involved, but that doesn't change the fact that the citizens fighting and dying in the protests are trying to rid Ukraine of Russia's influence.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44155146]This guy's pseudo-conspiratorial take is poorly cited and dotted with fallacies throughout.[/QUOTE]
Would you care to point out some of the fallacies, and perhaps correct them for us?
Interesting video, I enjoyed how he was saying both sides are in the wrong, as it is often in history.
Came expecting super conspiracy non sense. In the end not so bad.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;44153532]yes let us discuss the presentation of the video more than the facts contained within
and an oil "conspiracy" isnt complex. Its obvious.[/QUOTE]
Presentation is how you explain your position or opinion. It is as equally important as the subject matter itself, as bad presentation can lead to your position being misinterpreted. Bad presentation can also persuade the reader to consider the position in a different angle than was originally intended, to the point they could be drawn to an entirely different conclusion that could even be contrary to the point of the argument they are trying to make.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44154262]The western leaders are denouncing Russia for invading Ukraine, they didn't "try to find a reason," they had a damn good one. The reason Ukraine is an issue at all is very blatantly because of the oil.[/QUOTE]
Oil can certainly be one of the sources of interest for many of the politicians currently involved, but it isn't necessarily the only reason. It would be foolish to consider one's ulterior motives purely on the first easy conclusion that happens to show itself.
For the western powers, it wouldn't surprise me if the oil wasn't their major focus, especially when the distance would force those that would have to move it, would likely consider cheaper alternatives anyways. What if for some of the western powers, they would have been more interested in Ukraine joining the EU? Imagine how important it would be (for both sides) for an EU member to be so close to Russian soil.
[QUOTE=Quark:;44155492]Would you care to point out some of the fallacies, and perhaps correct them for us?[/QUOTE]
Some of the reasoning in this video seems to be a bit strange anyways. He makes the comparison that Obama considers the March 16 referendum of Crimea seceding and joining Russia is illegitimate unless the entirety of Ukraine votes, to the probability that Obama would have no problems with Scotland and their secession being illegitimate unless the entirety of the UK votes.
The problem with this comparison, is that Scotland isn't currently being occupied by armed forces who are trying to galvanize this movement.
A more accurate comparison would be if France had deployed troops into Quebec in order to protect their 'french assets and population' from the Canadian government. If a referendum were to be held that only the Quebecois would participate in, it would be equally as illegitimate, as Quebec, being a provice of Canada, also contains Canadian assets and economy. It would be absurd to think that Quebec could secede without the consideration of the rest of the country, just as it would be absurd to think Crimea could secede without the consideration of the rest of Ukraine. There is Ukrainian money and infrastructure in Crimea, and a sudden removal of that would be traumatic and substantial loss for the rest of Ukraine. Such a decision, therefore, would require the consideration of the entirety of Ukraine, were to be considered legitimate.
----------
As for his sources and citation, it leaves much to be desired. There are only two links, with only one of them being referenced to in the video. Half of the video talks about the NATO countries helping these neo-facist leaders get into the Ukrainian government. The source is an article from The Guardian. ([url]http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/04/who-governing-ukraine-olexander-turchynov[/url])
Now whether you consider The Guardian to be a credible news source or not, this TruthDump guy neglects to mention the alternative choices for the politicians, if there are any at all. He makes it sound like it was a pre-meditated decision of the western powers put neo-facists in charge of the country. As far as I can tell, and if someone knows any better, please correct me, but the reason the facists were gaining so much ground was because of the widespread rioting in Ukraine. What would normally be an insane position in normality, suddenly becomes an acceptable alternative during the riots.
Just because these pro-facism politicians were put into power, and the western countries recognize them as ukrainian leaders, it doesn't mean that the western countries had purposefully picked them out, and placed them in manually.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;44156551]He makes the comparison that Obama considers the March 16 referendum of Crimea seceding and joining Russia is illegitimate unless the entirety of Ukraine votes, to the probability that Obama would have no problems with Scotland and their secession being illegitimate unless the entirety of the UK votes.
The problem with this comparison, is that Scotland isn't currently being occupied by armed forces who are trying to galvanize this movement.
A more accurate comparison would be if France had deployed troops into Quebec in order to protect their 'french assets and population' from the Canadian government. If a referendum were to be held that only the Quebecois would participate in, it would be equally as illegitimate, as Quebec, being a provice of Canada, also contains Canadian assets and economy. It would be absurd to think that Quebec could secede without the consideration of the rest of the country, just as it would be absurd to think Crimea could secede without the consideration of the rest of Ukraine. There is Ukrainian money and infrastructure in Crimea, and a sudden removal of that would be traumatic and substantial loss for the rest of Ukraine. Such a decision, therefore, would require the consideration of the entirety of Ukraine, were to be considered legitimate.
[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that America has a history of not accepting when part of a country votes to secede without the approval of the rest of the country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
