| | | You’re right about borders, Ukraine’s boundaries have shifted many times throughout history, so that in itself isn’t unusual. There are no “good guys” in this conflict, but Russia initiated the invasion and remains the primary aggressor. It’s somewhat comparable to England’s meddling in Ireland, when the English tried to impose their so-called “Victorian values.”
Both Russia and Ukraine suffer from deep corruption, and tragically the people of Ukraine are being used as Cold War, style proxies by larger powers. What does it achieve? In the end, very little. Russia is not going to be conquered, and Russia is not going to fundamentally change.
Let’s pick MQ's post apart cleanly.
Quick summary MQ's post claims the U.S. is secretly bombing Russian infrastructure (Nord Stream, refineries), argues the U.S. has “escalated” and therefore deserves reciprocal bombing, and predicts nuclear retaliation by Russia against U.S. cities. It mixes geopolitical assertions with moral outrage and calls for reciprocal violence, then argues escalation is inevitable because of automatic systems and “dead hand” doctrines.
What the author is claiming (explicit & implicit) - The U.S. is responsible for major sabotage (Nord Stream, Russian refineries).
- Escalation is deliberate and already underway.
- Russia will — and should — retaliate, including with nuclear strikes on the U.S.
- Ordinary Americans are ignorant/complicit and will suffer the consequences.
- Propaganda controls most people’s minds; only a small minority sees the “truth.”
Logical evaluation — main problems and fallacies - Extraordinary claims without evidence (unsupported assertion).
- Claim: “Oh refineries all over Russia being bombed by USA. Nordstreams bombed by USA.”
- Problem: These are major geopolitical claims; the post offers no verifiable evidence, sources, times, actors, or motive. Extraordinary claims require corroboration.
- Post hoc / causal leap.
- The author treats correlation or rumor (“Looks as though USA has escalated… Rumour has it…”) as proof of causation — jumping from an event (explosion) to a specific perpetrator (USA) without showing how one follows the other.
- Conspiracy thinking / cherry-picking.
- Repeated references to “rumour” and the idea that official media are uniformly lying sets up a cherry-picked worldview where contradictory evidence is dismissed and any anomaly becomes proof of a single orchestrated plan.
- False equivalence / moral symmetry.
- “Time to start bombing them.” The piece equates alleged U.S. wrongdoing with moral justification for identical wrongs, ignoring important distinctions (scale, actors, law, proportionality, civilian impact).
- Slippery-slope / inevitability fallacy.
- Predicting that any escalation will necessarily lead immediately to full nuclear exchange (“as soon as escalation starts it goes full scale… in minutes”) treats a complex, multilateral, and highly mediated decision process as deterministic and automatic.
- Appeal to fear & emotional amplification.
- Vivid threats of “atomic bombs near Peoria” and references to massacres and “the end of six billion people” are emotionally manipulative and designed to shock rather than reason.
- Overgeneralization / stereotyping.
- Broad claims about “Americans” as ignorant, violent, or gullible — and “Euroserfs” — rely on sweeping generalizations about millions of people.
- Straw man / misrepresentation.
- The author attributes to “you” (the implied interlocutor) the simplistic demand that “Putin surrender and be killed” — setting up an easy-to-attack position that few serious people actually hold.
- Selective historical analogy (misapplied precedent).
- References to Napoleon, Barbarossa, Crimea, Kursk are used to imply inevitability or moral justification for modern nuclear use, but historical military defense versus contemporary nuclear doctrine are not analogous in relevant ways.
- Appeal to authority without named authorities.
- “that lady who studies nuclear war says the experts all say…” — this invokes experts but gives no names or citations; it’s an empty appeal to authority.
Internal inconsistency / poor reasoning - The post claims Russia “doesn’t have wide ranging military capability like the several US carrier fleets…” but immediately asserts Russia can “deliver small medium and large atomic bombs to anywhere.” Those two statements are inconsistent in framing — nuclear reach is not the same as conventional global force-projection, and the post treats both as if they interchangeably justify nuclear use.
- The author argues the average American “wouldn’t die” for Ukraine, then says Russians will strike U.S. cities “because Americans don’t understand anything other than brute force” — contradictory reasoning about motivations and likely outcomes.
Rhetorical tone & likely effects - The tone is conspiratorial, accusatory, and incitatory. It encourages reciprocal violence and seems to celebrate or at least accept mass casualties as “justice.” That makes the post dangerous rhetoric: it normalizes retaliation and escalatory violence rather than advocating de-escalation or verification.
- As persuasion it’s weak for a neutral audience: unsupported assertions + fear appeals lose credibility with critical readers.
How to salvage the argument (if the goal is persuasion rather than provocation) - Cite verifiable sources. Provide dates, locations, named investigations, intelligence leaks, or credible reporting before asserting responsibility for a major act.
- Differentiate fact from opinion. Use language like “allegations” and “reported by X” when appropriate.
- Avoid calls for violence. If the point is to warn about escalation, argue for diplomatic or defensive measures; incitement undermines moral authority.
- Address counter-evidence. Acknowledge alternative explanations and explain why they are less plausible — that’s how you avoid conspiracy framing.
- Use proportionality and normative reasoning. If arguing about justice, explain legal and moral reasoning rather than “an eye for an eye.”
Questions a critical reader should ask the author - What sources confirm the U.S. did these attacks? Where, when, who investigated?
- Why would the U.S. carry out such visible acts knowing the risk of provoking nuclear escalation? What motive and benefit would outweigh the risk?
- Have credible intelligence or open investigations attributed responsibility? If not, why assert it as fact?
- Do you accept any counter-evidence? If so, what would change your view?
Bottom line (short) The post is rhetorically charged but logically weak: it makes serious, plausibly false claims without evidence, relies on conspiratorial framing and emotional appeals, contains multiple logical fallacies (unsupported assertions, slippery slope, false equivalence), and urges dangerous action. If the goal is to persuade or inform, it needs sources, nuance, and removal of violent incitement. If the goal is to warn about escalation, the author should focus on verifiable facts and de-escalatory recommendations rather than predictions of nuclear retaliation.
Would you like a short rewrite that keeps the author’s anxiety about escalation but removes the conspiratorial leaps and calls for violence — so it’s more persuasive to a skeptical reader?
 |
|
