"It was bad for Germany to fight for Danzig. It is good for Ukraine to fight for Crimea. Why? Everyone knows why. Educate yourself, citizen. Some wars are brave and others cruel. Some peaces are sweet and others cowardly."
So in WW2 Germany was only fighting for Danzig. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Yarvin is deliberately dishonest -- probably only to be in with whatever he takes to be the in-crowd.
It is really foolish. I, frankly, have revised my opinion of Yarvin's intelligence downwards. The man thinks Shakespeare was written by some talentless earl who died before some of the plays were even composed.
For starters, Putin was the aggressor here: Ukraine was not fighting for Crimea until after Putin marched an army against its capital. Yarvin's analogy would only hold if Ukraine had attacked first. Once it was invaded, it needed to fight for Crimea because it is strategically vulnerable---due to its reliance on a highly precarious land route and even more precarious bridge---and can be used as a bargaining chip for the return of areas that are less vulnerable like the Donbass or Ukraine's southern coast. If you can't take back the Donbass directly, or Maruipol directly, take back something else and make a trade.
Indeed, Putin was the one whose motives were more like Hitler's: For Hitler was not first and foremost fighting for Danzig but for a land bridge to East Prussia. Similarly, Putin was fighting for a land bridge to Crimea. Putin's motives are far closer to Hitler's than Zelensky's are.
Who strikes whom first is a rule that every child understands when determining who is at fault in a playground tussle: But Yarvin seems to struggle with this concept that most three year olds readily comprehend.
Perhaps the extremely intelligent are better liars: And this leads them to lie even to themselves---making them capable of stupidity that lesser minds, grounded in common sense, are not.
That said, I cannot rule out dishonesty. Yarvin must know that Putin was largely fighting this war to build a land bridge to Crimea and to secure its water supply from the North Crimean Canal. With respect to the land bridge, he is the one who bares comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany, not Zelensky.
Yarvin today:
"It was bad for Germany to fight for Danzig. It is good for Ukraine to fight for Crimea. Why? Everyone knows why. Educate yourself, citizen. Some wars are brave and others cruel. Some peaces are sweet and others cowardly."
So in WW2 Germany was only fighting for Danzig. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that Yarvin is deliberately dishonest -- probably only to be in with whatever he takes to be the in-crowd.
It is really foolish. I, frankly, have revised my opinion of Yarvin's intelligence downwards. The man thinks Shakespeare was written by some talentless earl who died before some of the plays were even composed.
For starters, Putin was the aggressor here: Ukraine was not fighting for Crimea until after Putin marched an army against its capital. Yarvin's analogy would only hold if Ukraine had attacked first. Once it was invaded, it needed to fight for Crimea because it is strategically vulnerable---due to its reliance on a highly precarious land route and even more precarious bridge---and can be used as a bargaining chip for the return of areas that are less vulnerable like the Donbass or Ukraine's southern coast. If you can't take back the Donbass directly, or Maruipol directly, take back something else and make a trade.
Indeed, Putin was the one whose motives were more like Hitler's: For Hitler was not first and foremost fighting for Danzig but for a land bridge to East Prussia. Similarly, Putin was fighting for a land bridge to Crimea. Putin's motives are far closer to Hitler's than Zelensky's are.
Who strikes whom first is a rule that every child understands when determining who is at fault in a playground tussle: But Yarvin seems to struggle with this concept that most three year olds readily comprehend.
Perhaps the extremely intelligent are better liars: And this leads them to lie even to themselves---making them capable of stupidity that lesser minds, grounded in common sense, are not.
That said, I cannot rule out dishonesty. Yarvin must know that Putin was largely fighting this war to build a land bridge to Crimea and to secure its water supply from the North Crimean Canal. With respect to the land bridge, he is the one who bares comparison to Hitler and Nazi Germany, not Zelensky.
A little outdated, but I still make some interesting points. I am glad they are getting them.