this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2025
19 points (91.3% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8258 readers
372 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess you could say: through constantly shifting rhetorical focus the enemy is both weak and strong.
You’re not analyzing anything here. You’re just mocking a strawman version of things to avoid facing what you don’t understand.
Putin thrives on ambiguity, and Trump has served that strategy again and again, openly and with intent.
If you studied asymmetric warfare instead of ridiculing what you haven't yet grasped, you might begin to dispel the ignorance in yourselves as well as in your perceived enemies.
We understand your understanding perfectly well. How could we not, when the media have been broadcasting it to us for over three years? We just think that understanding is wrong. The asymmetric warfare is coming from the US, it goes back decades, and it is bipartisan.
Previously. Previously. Previously. Previously.
That you can only call out the US, but not name names or other countries and their leaders, all but proves that you don't understand.
Good day.
EDIT: Again is it clear you all don't understand asymmetric war, because if you did, you would be able to see that your circlejerk is just a case of building up and tearing down strawmen.
EDIT 2: And still, in all your rationalizations and gyrations, you can't admit that anyone other than the nebulous "US" can engage in asymmetric warfare. This alone shows the limitations of your thinking.
And trying to use the "debunking" of great man theory as proof that Putin and Trump aren't important actors is bonkers. Both clearly act with autocratic "self-determination."
No one is saying they are great men. At best they are "generals" in the byzantine generals problem. Again, you need to do more research on the topic of asymmetric warfare before you will be able to make a coherent argument against the foundational thesis: "Putin thrives on ambiguity, and Trump has served that strategy again and again, openly and with intent."
Likewise, the straw-manning I called out was in the original circlejerk between you and the other original commenters.
The thesis I have put forth is the "steelman" that you are now flailing against. You are learning that it is harder to make rhetorical progress against an actual argument/thesis than a bullshit one.
Read and research more. Then maybe you will make actual progress in understanding the moment.
I didn’t say that only the US can engage in asymmetric warfare, nor did I say that Putin and Trump are not important actors. Who is strawmanning who?
And what’s with “the nebulous ‘US’”? No one is confused about what the US is. And how is the Byzantine generals problem relevant, when secure, real-time, two-way communication is at their disposal?
Your foundational thesis is so vague that it’s unfalsifiable, which is why I didn’t even try. Like I said, it’s just a vaguepost, ripe for annoying motte-and-bailey argumentation.
You haven’t even made a case to be strawmanned. You’ve just claimed that Putin thrives on ambiguity and thrown the term “asymmetric war” around. I can’t strawman a vaguepost.
There is no shortage of examples of the US engaging in asymmetric war, directly or by proxy. Who do you think funded and trained the Ukrainian Banderites since 2015, (and how far back do you think that relationship goes[1][2][3])? Who do you think green lighted the 2014 Maidan false flag massacre by Red Sector/Banderite fascists, and why was Victoria Nuland handing out cookies in the square? What do you think the National Endowment for Democracy does? It doesn’t promote democracy, quite the opposite. It regime changes through proxy insurgencies and proxy NGO shenanigans. The NED is an engine for manufacturing “color revolutions.” The blueprint of regime change operations
Edit to add:
Never go full Maddow. This is founded on great man theory, where world history is steered by the personages of Putin and Trump. Historical materialists reject that theory.
That’s a non sequitur undeserving of a response, but my above previouslies name a dozen names and several countries’ leaders.