Is Biden not that dictator already? Or is it going to be exclusively Trump, because US citizens do not care who gets genocided overseas as long as they get to live their mentally ill lifestyle more?
You know he just condemned 61 protestors to years of federal carceral slavery under the RICO act, which was INTENDED to be used against organized crime? Your man’s a straight-up fascist dictator, and you’re a collaborator.
If you’re talking about the “Cop City” protesters, that was Georgia State. Not Federal government. It’s 100% bullshit but it’s not Biden’s fault. It’s the Republican lead government of Georgia and their AG.
As the head of the Executive branch, it’s his law. RICO charges are federal charges, they carry FELONY time of up to twenty years if not longer because that’s just a guideline. It also falls to him to grant pardons. Ergo, his inaction is his fault. Do not come to me caping for settlers like YOU’RE THE GUY who can run defense for him. You are not him.
Comparing the two, trump is more dictator-aligned seeing as how he openly talks the dictator talk, aka using government agencies to take out political opponents, dehumanizing minorities to curry favor with fascists, openly calling for the constitution of the US to be ripped to shreds, etc. And let’s be honest here, whether trump or Biden, they’d both be enabling the genocide of Palestinians. The only difference is that while Biden is enabling the genocide of Palestinians, trump would do that and stop aid to Ukraine, letting Russia genocide tf outta Ukraine as well.
Bidens admin just declared that Ukraine WILL join NATO a direct provocation and greatly increased chances for WW3, this along makes Biden the much much greater of the two evils.
Hardly the first time. I’d argue the US made the same mistake in Afghanistan in 2003, diverting resources to Iraq because Bush Jr. had such a hard-on for Saddam.
I agree with the viewpoints, but many voted for the Russia supporting party, and noone else got enough support in the primaries. There needs to be massively increased primary involvement before a systemic change to move away from the two party system can be feasible. I’m a big fan of ranked choice voting myself, but what big party candidate is going to advocate for that in the current climate? I’m hoping changes can happen over the next decade as my generation and the one below get even more active.
I mean involvement of the voters themselves. I push a lot of my friends to just go vote, but they still won’t. If you figure out how to get people to actually want to fix the situation, let me know.
I know that in America, currently, "peaceful protester" is an officially classified terrorist group. That was what Occupy Wallstreet resulted in.
I have no idea what Blue MAGA is even suggesting when they say "get more involved in government outside of election season". The concept doesn't exist.
I definitely still vote on measures.
When my choices are vote for Genocide and continued severe loss of privacy of freedom A or Genocide and continued severe loss of privacy of freedom B, all I can figure is vote disenfranchised. Won't check the damn box.
Primary results where people did that have already gotten Biden change his half hour chit chat with Bibi from "your US taxpayer dollars are on the way. The weapons you are buying with those dollars are on the way" to "your US taxpayer dollars are on the way. The weapons you are buying with those dollars are on the way, try to go easier on the civilians in Gaza."
If Biden suffers a shameful and embarrassing defeat, maybe the next Democrat will figure out the correct answer is "fuck you Bibi, you genocidal maniac. Israel is cut off, that money will now be invested into fixing the healthcare crisis in America, our military is moving humanitarian aid into Gaza, and if your genocidal asshats so much as point a gun in the general direction of our soldiers and the starving citizens of Gaza, you will enjoy our crosshairs."
I know that in America, currently, “peaceful protester” is an officially classified terrorist group. That was what Occupy Wallstreet resulted in.
The Cop City protestors are facing RICO charges right now for protesting a murderhog training camp; and they tried going after people out of state that contributed to the bail funds for those protestors. I’m not voting for a Dem ever again honestly.
ah yes, tying to get privacy people on your side, shame if there were estonian privacy people wouldn’t it. now follow gordons orders : www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQsAvQvAxg8
The Russian Army is largely represented as a bunch of baffoons in the Western media, but it’s still one of the 3 largest armies in the world. Ukraine cannot hold their lines indefinitely, the only way to “win” against an opponent that has multiple times your materiel available is guerilla.
There’s no win for humanity through war against an opponent that has thousand of nukes. If one of the nuclear reactors in the region would had been seriously damaged you would be curse every cent that went into fueling this war. We are walking on a thin line already.
If nuclear deterrence actually worked then Russia wouldn’t have invaded Ukraine to begin with. You might as well just hand over all of your rights and bow to your nuclear overlords if you think it entitles them to anything.
Republicans are good buddies with Putin. If Trump would have been in power, he would have been selling weapons for the Russians, then play along with the whole “Ukrainians are actually Russians” stuff of Putin.
This was not said by Russia, it was said by US General Milley to the US Congress, when he lost his marbles at first when the war started. Later it surfaced as popular cope when NATO shills found a second to breathe.
Really depends on what you mean by loose, and what constitutes a win for Russia.
Russia’s original objective was to waltz to Kyiv and kick down a rotten door, expecting the house to follow. Well that didn’t work out, so what’s the new objective?
Is a win occupying all of Ukraine, just the peninsula, or just realizing the new territory in donbos? If you are talking about the peninsula or the breakaway territory, yea they could probably get away with that pretty easily, but that’s pretty much where we started. But, I would hesitate calling it a win to waste generations worth of military equipment and men to maintain the status quo.
If you are talking about permanently occupying the entirety of the country… I’m not really sure if that’s even an obtainable goal? They are still fighting for every kilometer in eastern Ukraine, and defences will only get tougher as you head west. Plus, they won’t want to utilize the type of bombardments they use to avoid urban combat in the larger eastern cities. At least not if they are the ones who are expecting to pay the bills when this is all over.
This whole venture is only profitable if they actually get to fully integrate Ukrainians into the Russian federation, and with how bloody this war has been, that means a significant occupation force, likely over half a million soldiers.
Win in my opinion would be have the ability to control all of Ukraine eventually, or force Ukaine to capitulate. Maybe they would not be able to occupy because that was never their goal, it was to stop Ukraine from joining nato.
Win in my opinion would be have the ability to control all of Ukraine eventually, or force Ukaine to capitulate.
I wouldn’t say they’re doing so well on the hearts and minds front…
As far as capitulation, that’s what we’re talking about here. What could they possibly capitulate too that would be considered a win at this point? Just about the only thing that would come close is the entirety of Ukraine, and maybe a chunk of Moldavia? That’s going to be an occupation, and everyone knows how well those go these days.
was to stop Ukraine from joining nato.
Okay, well mission accomplished. You stopped a neighboring nation from potentially joining, and scarred two other neighbors into the express lane.
Plus, I don’t think that’s really an academically honest opinion. It would be like saying America invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
A lot of Ukrainians were not really excited about NATO prosperity until Russia started pulling the same shenanigans they did in Georgia and Moldavia. It’s not exactly a new tactic in Russia’s foreign policy.
Except that the US said last week that Ukraine WILL join NATO. Its an astounding stupid move when that is precisely what Russia doesnt want to happen. Biden is such a fuck up its astounding. Literally that dick head is pushing us directly into WW3.
Except that the US said last week that Ukraine WILL join NATO.
I wonder why?
Its an astounding stupid move when that is precisely what Russia doesnt want to happen.
No one wanted to join NATO before Russia started experimenting with their break away tactics in Georgia in 08’. Before then most of the time when NATO offered membership the country would reject them. It’s actually not really that great of a deal, unless you are afraid of actually being attacked.
Literally that dick head is pushing us directly into WW3.
Ahh yes, the belligerent party who started all this has no autonomy nor responsibility over its own actions.
You are so ignorant as to the situation that I dont know where to start… I would recommend that you read Scott Hortons book “Provoked” because you just have a basic lack of understanding what is happening.
You mean the great mind that brought us “The Great Ron Paul”? I’m sorry, I don’t really feel the need to read how America caused all this by failing to protect the free market…
Ron Paul has been one of the greatest politicians we have ever had, but that is not related to the discussion of Ukraine (which he agrees we obviously should have never been involved in). But I guess if you dont know about Ron Paul, you wouldnt know the history of why these conflicts are happening.
Ron Paul has been one of the greatest politicians we have ever had
Maybe if you really enjoy racist cartoons, homophobia, and advocating for a race war?
but that is not related to the discussion of Ukraine
If you make an appeal to authority, I think it’s appropriate to criticize the legitimacy of that authority. I think being a fanboy of Ron Paul makes it pretty self evident that he has an odd perspective on current events.
But I guess if you dont know about Ron Paul
Just about his ties to the growing white nationalist movement going back as far as ruby ridge. He is one of the architects of modern organized white nationalist violence.
wouldnt know the history of why these conflicts are happening.
Lol, just because I don’t have the same perspective of an oxymoronic an-cap, doesn’t mean I’m unaware of history. If there is one consistency in Russian governments of the last 200 years, it’s been imperial expansion via Russian chauvinism. It doesnt matter if we’re talking about the Romanovs, the Soviets, or the federation, when Russia expands its borders it attempts to annex via assimilation into Russian culture and language.
At least you’re consistent with your political beliefs, Libertarians being incapable of empathic behavior and all. Oh, you don’t share the same archaic belief structure as me…you must not be a sentient being.
Way to turn solipsism into a political ideology, the ancient boy fuckers would be so proud of you.
Lol, my dude. You are a libertarian… Where do you think the lib in libertarian derives from? It’s Liberalism, as described by John Locke, a system of government that focuses on individual liberty, private property, and the protection of the free market.
Pretty much the thing your entire world view revolves around. You aren’t just a shitlib, you are an ultra shitlib. To the point that you don’t even understand the insults you lay upon yourself.
Oh shit, you’re right. Russia doesn’t want that, so I guess we should just let them have what they want.
What are you on about? This is a war in which Russia, unprovoked, invaded its neighbor to grab land, bodies, ports, and food. Russia is going to share multiple borders with NATO when this is over; the question is just whether the border is the Ukrainian border or the Polish border. If either of those scenarios results in World War 3, odds are pretty good both of them do. There’s simply no universe in which NATO allows Russia to take over all of Eastern Europe (again). Even if the fascists take the US in November, Europe will pour everything it has into stopping Putin’s advance.
Sure, Ukraine probably “loses” in the end, in one way or another. By many measures they’ve already lost. But it’s not a binary proposition. The point of propping up Ukraine at this stage is as much about forcing Russia to spend its fighting ability on Ukraine now, instead of in WW3. This desire is part of the reason that capitulating, conceding some land, and letting Russia regroup for a decade before doing a better job next time is only palatable with Ukraine in NATO. The threat of a world war is the only thing that would stop Russia from repeating this bullshit every ten to twenty years for another five generations.
I wouldn’t say they’re doing so well on the hearts and minds front…
In Russia and Eastern Ukraine they did…
Plus, I don’t think that’s really an academically honest opinion. It would be like saying America invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
The US facilitated the coup in 2014 (at least there’s a smoking gun), Russia tried to join NATO 3 times and got denied, domestically Navalny got propped up by the west. The writing was on the wall…unlike Iraq
A lot of Ukrainians were not really excited about NATO prosperity until Russia started pulling the same shenanigans they did in Georgia and Moldavia. It’s not exactly a new tactic in Russia’s foreign policy.
You’re reversing cause and effect. First there was the prospect of joining NATO for Ukraine and Georgia then the war in Georgia happened as a response/protest from russia.
Also you’re admitting that the a lot of Ukrainian were not excited about joining NATO, why push for it anyway… not really democratic. Sounds what a puppet government would do
Ahh yes, murdering the opposition into compliance, definitely winning the hearts and minds there. It’s not like tens of thousands of Russian men of service age fled the draft or anything.
As far as eastern Ukraine… "Girkin was one of the commanders in Russia’s annexation of Crimea, which immediately followed the revolution. In an interview on 22 January 2015, he explained that Russian media falsely portrayed Crimeans as supporting the annexation; Girkin said a majority of the local administration, law enforcement and army were opposed to it.[45][46] Girkin stated that under his command, the rebels “collected” deputies into the chambers, and had to “forcibly drive the deputies to vote [to join Russia]”.
Sounds real democratic…
The US facilitated the coup in 2014 (at least there’s a smoking gun)
And Russia was facilitating the ruling Ukrainian oligarchy, the only real difference was that America didn’t put boots on the ground when they got politically outmaneuvered.
Russia tried to join NATO 3 times and got denied
They didn’t try to join NATO three times. In the early 00’s and as a response to the war on terrorism Russia began running joint exercises, establishing the NATO Russian joint council.
domestically Navalny got propped up by the west.
How so?
You’re reversing cause and effect. First there was the prospect of joining NATO for Ukraine and Georgia then the war in Georgia happened as a response/protest from russia.
You’re talking about 08’ Bucharest Summit? The Russian federation was still in a join council with NATO at the time, and neither Ukraine nor Georgia were a priority to him, they were mainly focusing on Kosovo.
Actual public support for joining NATO only started after 2014, after the events in Georgian, and as a response to the Russian backed separation movement.
Ukrainian were not excited about joining NATO, why push for it anyway… not really democratic. Sounds what a puppet government would do
You’re asking why they wanted to join NATO for protection when they already have Russians occupying parts of their eastern territory?
The vast majority of Ukrainians did not want to join in 08’ nor would it have been possible with their current government. Even after their 2014 election, and actual public interest increased, they still had to make major changes to their judiciary system before they would even be considered.
Finally, even if we accept the rhetoric from Russia that NATO was the reason they facilitated the succession in eastern Ukraine, that doesn’t explain why they invaded the rest of the country. It isn’t possible for a country to join NATO while they are engaged in territorial disputes. So why destroy your neighbors when the goal is already accomplished?
This all started because in 04 Ukraine was tired of being a defacto vassal state to Russia. The country that had been propping up oligarchic leaderships with deep ties to Russian capital since the fall of the Soviet Republic. Once Putin couldn’t hold down the eastern blok with soft power alone, he used the only tools left to him, subversive hard power.
I just don’t really understand why you give the state the benefit of doubt, considering their historic relations with their neighbors in the caucuses and eastern Europe.
Ahh yes, murdering the opposition into compliance, definitely winning the hearts and minds there.
Putin is undeniably popular in Russia, having reversed neoliberal policies and bringing political stability after yeltsins shock therapy. Crimea: That’s a lot of people no? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgMZBjgCFHo
they got politically outmaneuvered.
Ukraine seems to be a pawn in your worldview. Ok.
They [Russia] didn’t try to join NATO three times.
You missed how Navalny was propped up by the West??
You’re asking why they wanted to join NATO for protection when they already have Russians occupying parts of their eastern territory?
You’re talking about 08’ Bucharest Summit? The Russian federation was still in a join council with NATO at the time, and neither Ukraine nor Georgia were a priority to him
NATO–Russia relations stalled and subsequently started to deteriorate, following the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004–2005 and the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. 2004–2007
In the years 2004–2006, Russia undertook several hostile trade actions directed against Ukraine and the Western countries (see #Trade and economy below). Several highly publicised murders of Putin’s opponents also occurred in Russia in that period, marking his increasingly authoritarian rule and the tightening of his grip on the media (see #Ideology and propaganda below).
In 2006, Russian intelligence performed an assassination on the territory of a NATO member state.[citation needed] On 1 November 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a British-naturalised Russian defector and former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) who specialised in tackling organized crime and advised British intelligence and coined the term “mafia state”, suddenly fell ill and was hospitalised after poisoning with polonium-210; he died from the poisoning on 23 November.[55] The events leading up to this are well documented, despite spawning numerous theories relating to his poisoning and death. A British murder investigation identified Andrey Lugovoy, a former member of Russia’s Federal Protective Service (FSO), as the main suspect. Dmitry Kovtun was later named as a second suspect.[56] The United Kingdom demanded that Lugovoy be extradited, however Russia denied the extradition as the Russian constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens, leading to a straining of relations between Russia and the United Kingdom.[57]
Subsequently, Russia suspended in 2007 its participation in the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe. 2008 Meeting of the NATO–Russia council in Bucharest, Romania on 4 April 2008
In 2008, Russia condemned the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo,[58] stating they “expect the UN mission and NATO-led forces in Kosovo to take immediate action to carry out their mandate … including the annulling of the decisions of Pristina’s self-governing organs and the taking of tough administrative measures against them.”[59] Russian President Vladimir Putin described the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by several major world powers as “a terrible precedent, which will de facto blow apart the whole system of international relations, developed not over decades, but over centuries”, and that “they have not thought through the results of what they are doing. At the end of the day it is a two-ended stick and the second end will come back and hit them in the face”.[60] Europe was not unanimous in this matter, and a number of European countries have refused to recognise the sovereignty of Kosovo, while a number of further European nations did so only to appease the United States.[citation needed]
Nevertheless, the heads of state for NATO Allies and Russia gave a positive assessment of NATO-Russia Council achievements in a Bucharest summit meeting in April 2008,[61] though both sides have expressed mild discontent with the lack of actual content resulting from the council.
In early 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed full support for admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, to the opposition of Russia.[62][63] The Russian Government claimed plans to expand NATO to Ukraine and Georgia may negatively affect European security. Likewise, Russians are mostly strongly opposed to any eastward expansion of NATO.[64][65] Russian President Dmitry Medvedev stated in 2008 that “no country would be happy about a military bloc to which it did not belong approaching its borders”.[66] Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin warned that any incorporation of Ukraine into NATO would cause a “deep crisis” in Russia–Ukraine relations and also negatively affect Russia’s relations with the West.[67]
Relations between NATO and Russia soured in summer 2008 due to Russia’s war with Georgia. Later the North Atlantic Council condemned Russia for recognizing the South Ossetia and Abkhazia regions of Georgia as independent states.[68] The Secretary General of NATO claimed that Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including resolutions endorsed by Russia. Russia, in turn, insisted the recognition was taken basing on the situation on the ground, and was in line with the UN Charter, the CSCE Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and other fundamental international law;[69] Russian media heavily stressed the precedent of the recent Kosovo declaration of independence.
Putin is undeniably popular in Russia, having reversed neoliberal policies
Lol, reversed neoliberal policies by organizing the oligarchs in order of personal loyalty?
bringing political stability after yeltsins shock therapy.
Ahh yes, my country’s stability is built upon a mountain of sanctions. Surely the benefits of adopting a wartime economy will never end, and never have any foreseeable consequences…
Ukraine seems to be a pawn in your worldview. Ok.
Lol, so when you claim that America led a coup you were implying …?
least one, not gonna do you the effort to find you the other ones
Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join Nato?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join Nato, they apply to join Nato.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’”
Yeah, having a single off-handed remark does not qualify as trying to join NATO three times. They never applied. You haven’t found one example, let alone three…
missed how Navalny was propped up by the West??
What do you mean by propped up? Are you implying that Russians are just a pawn to be played with?
NATO–Russia relations stalled and subsequently started to deteriorate, following the Ukrainian Orange Revolution in 2004–2005 and the Russo-Georgian War in 2008. 2004–2007
Yes, as I said. Putin started feeling his power slip in the eastern block, as a response to the orange revolution they implemented hostile trade deals.
2008, Russia condemned the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo,[58] stating they "expect the UN mission and NATO-led forces in Kosovo to take immediate action to carry out their mandate … including the annulling of the decisions of Pristina’s self-governing organs and the taking of tough administrative measures against them
Yes, Putin was the only hold out in Kosovo, he wanted a resolution that both Kosovo and Yugoslavia would agree to…which was a political impossibility. The serbs wanted to murder or displace any Albanian left in Yugoslavia, there’s not really a middle ground available there.
Putting just wanted a pretext to spark more instability in former Soviet states.
the heads of state for NATO Allies and Russia gave a positive assessment of NATO-Russia Council achievements in a Bucharest summit meeting in April 2008,[61] though both sides have expressed mild discontent with the lack of actual content resulting from the council.
Not really helping your argument… Isn’t this the meeting you claimed eventually causes both conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia? Funny that it didn’t seem to bother him much at the time?
In early 2008, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed full support for admitting Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, to the opposition of Russia.[
Yes…at the Bucharest summit NATO claimed they wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, the same summit you just said went well
Relations between NATO and Russia soured in summer 2008 due to Russia’s war with Georgia.
I thought you claimed the reason things soured was because the announcement at Bucharest? Now your claim is suggesting that things only soured after Russia backed a coup in Georgia…?
Russia’s recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia violated numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including resolutions endorsed by Russia. Russia, in turn, insisted the recognition was taken basing on the situation on the ground,
Lol, are you even reading what your quoting? None of this is helping your argument…
Lol, reversed neoliberal policies by organizing the oligarchs in order of personal loyalty?
Pretty much yes. The toppling of the USSR brought shock-Therapy and privatization with Yeltsin and brought a lot of unemployment and instability. Putin alleviated that, making him popular. Yeltsin and Clinton even handpicked the guy to make sure he doesn’t bring back the USSR (Sidenote, ever wonder why they don’t show life expectancy curves never go before the 90s in russia? No, It’s not because the numbers were faked).
Ahh yes, my country’s stability is built upon a mountain of sanctions. Surely the benefits of adopting a wartime economy will never end, and never have any foreseeable consequences…
You libs never explain why Putin a US handpicked guy went from friend to foe. Could it be because Rosneft and Gazprom are SOEs and Putin doesn’t want to sell these off to Western capitalists?
Yeah, having a single off-handed remark does not qualify as trying to join NATO three times. They never applied. You haven’t found one example, let alone three…
They wouldn’t let him, because he wanted to be an equal imperial country
Lol, so when you claim that America led a coup you were implying …?
What do you mean by propped up? Are you implying that Russians are just a pawn to be played with?
I don’t deny it, the US topples regimes as it pleases and uses them as pawns. Like they do with Ukraine right now, or how they facilitate a genocide in Gaza, or agitate Taiwan against Mainland China. It’s always funny to me when its usually libs you can’t admit it and then you write shit like that. I seem to have rattled you lol
Yes, as I said. Putin started feeling his power slip in the eastern block, as a response to the orange revolution they implemented hostile trade deals.
Ergo he, as someone who does realist politics, saw the writing on the wall as NATO was expanding toward him.
the heads of state for NATO Allies and Russia gave a positive assessment of NATO-Russia Council achievements in a Bucharest summit meeting in April 2008,[61] though both sides have expressed mild discontent with the lack of actual content resulting from the council
Yes…at the Bucharest summit NATO claimed they wanted Georgia and Ukraine in NATO, the same summit you just said went well
I thought you claimed the reason things soured was because the announcement at Bucharest? Now your claim is suggesting that things only soured after Russia backed a coup in Georgia…?
Russia had interest to join, but only if NATO internally reformed for members to be on equal footing (Which hasn’t happened until today, USA is the leader still) and Russia got rejected.
I mean we’re getting actually trapped in the minutia of the argument. The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO (why if USSR and USA were allies in WW2?) and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
the overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO (why if USSR and USA were allies in WW2?)
Because NATO was formed from the Treaty of Dunkirk during the onset of WW2 as a mutual aid and assistance program if either Russia or Germany attacked. This was expanded to the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium in 48 during the Treaty of Brussels. This was called the Western Union.
Interest in America joining was fairly immediate after America adopted the Truman doctrine, which stated they would support any democracy being attacked by an “authoritarian” government. Which was a response to Stalin enacting the coup in Czechoslovakia after the Communist party in Italy and France failed to make any gains. This of course happened after the Soviet and Nazi split Poland between themselves.
Thus the north Atlantic treaty was formed.
came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance.
The Warsaw pact was a defense agreement? Or are you talking about prior to 55’?
Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR?
You said it yourself earlier, NATO wasn’t exactly confident in the federation’s ability to maintain its commitment to democracy. But there was some cautious optimism, military spending was cut drastically, and there was a large demobilization of military equipment and personal.
NATO had serious talks about it’s future, delisted Russia as a sworn enemy, and started to be involved in more humanitarian aid. Russia under Yeltsin aided in the NATO intervention in ethnic cleaning in Bosnia 92’.
Things really don’t start to deteriorate until Kosovo in 99’. For some reason this time, Russia wouldn’t allow intervention to pass the UN security council, let alone help intervene like in Bosnia. After the conflict was over nato wanted to work with Russia to act as peace keepers, Russia for some reason this time wanted to act independently to look after their serbs. NATO was afraid it would partition the city and lead to future break away conflicts.
Coincidentally from years 97 to 99, Putin served as deputy chief of the Presidential Staff, chief of the Main Control Directorate of the Presidential Property Management Department , 1st class Active State Councillor of the Russian Federation, First Deputy Chief of the Presidential Staff for the regions, head of the commission for the preparation of agreements on the delimitation of the power of the regions and head of the federal center attached to the president, head of the FSB, acting prime minister, Prime Minister, Acting President, and finally elected president in 2004.
US even handpicked Putin
How? By the time Putin left St Petersburg for Moscow Yeltsin was 10% vodka by body weight. They thought they had a handle on Yeltsin like they did in the early days, but he was already somebody else’s drunk puppet.
You think I’m a liberal, but I’ve probably been organizing mutual aid groups for leftist and at risk minority populations for longer than you’ve been an adult. I can’t believe I’ve witnessed mother fucking Putin go from “Yeltsin attack dog” to “Defender Against Western Hegemony” in such a short period of time?
Interest in America joining was fairly immediate after America adopted the Truman doctrine
A reactionary that knowingly or self-deceptively dropped atomic bombs on Japan, even though Japan was pretty much defeated already.
Which was a response to Stalin enacting the coup in Czechoslovakia after the Communist party in Italy and France failed to make any gains. This of course happened after the Soviet and Nazi split Poland between themselves.
Conveniently jumping timelines and failing to mention the Munich conference, conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland,…
Thus the north Atlantic treaty was formed.
A defensive alliance created in 1949 a significant escalation on a thinly veiled pre-text used by western capitalists.
The Warsaw pact was a defense agreement? Or are you talking about prior to 55’?
A reaction to the NATO formation, came the soviet unions defensive alliance the warsaw pact in 1955. Meaning, the first major escalation came from the Capitalist countries after WW2.
You said it yourself earlier, NATO wasn’t exactly confident in the federation’s ability to maintain its commitment to democracy. But there was some cautious optimism, military spending was cut drastically, and there was a large demobilization of military equipment and personal.
I know it wasn’t signed and fuck Gorby for not getting it in writing, but NATO (a defensive alliance) should have been disbanded after the Warsaw pact disbanded. Increasing member states when everything was friendly, communicates geopolitically that there is a threat. What threat if theres no more SU and Yeltsin and Putin being friendly?
NATO had serious talks about it’s future, delisted Russia as a sworn enemy, and started to be involved in more humanitarian aid.
It was a defensive alliance, you’re arguiing for a world police which basically means keeping the US as a hegemon. Fuck that.
Things really don’t start to deteriorate until Kosovo in 99’. For some reason this time, Russia wouldn’t allow intervention to pass the UN security council, let alone help intervene like in Bosnia. After the conflict was over nato wanted to work with Russia to act as peace keepers, Russia for some reason this time wanted to act independently to look after their serbs. NATO was afraid it would partition the city and lead to future break away conflicts.
Does not justify having kept NATO after the dissolution of the SU.
reactionary that knowingly or self-deceptively dropped atomic bombs on Japan, even though Japan was pretty much defeated already
Don’t forget, he was also massive racist. But again, this bedsides the point. We were discussing the history of how NATO formed.
Conveniently jumping timelines and failing to mention the Munich conference, conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland
Jumping time lines? The Munich conference was in 38’ prior to the war, and prior to the beginnings of NATO.
conflating non-aggression pacts with splinting Poland
When did I even mention non-aggression pacts in regards to Poland? What are you considering a non aggression pact?
A defensive alliance created in 1949 a significant escalation on a thinly veiled pre-text used by western capitalists.
It was reflexive to the coup in Czechoslovakia 48’… A defensive alliance is more of an escalation than annexing 2 countries?
reaction to the NATO formation, came the soviet unions defensive alliance the warsaw pact in 1955. Meaning, the first major escalation came from the Capitalist countries after WW2.
Lol, my dude. WW2 ended in 45’, the Soviets ran the coup in Czechoslovakia in 48’, NATO formed in a direct response to this in 49’. Who’s conveniently jumping around the timeline again?
was a defensive alliance, you’re arguiing for a world police which basically means keeping the US as a hegemon. Fuck that.
I’m not arguing for it, I’m just trying to accurately depict the history of NATO’s relationship with the Russian federation. You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.
Europe was tired of investing 3% of their economy for security theater. Even after Russia’s turn about over Kosovo and Georgia, the European members were still highly resistant towards maintaining the alliance. Likely if Russia would have been consistent with their dealings with NATO in 99, it probably would have been dissolved.
Capitalist don’t want to pay for war equipment they don’t use, there’s just no profit return on military spending unless you are on the supply side like America.
Does not justify having kept NATO after the dissolution of the SU.
You think an alliance that lasted multiple decades is just going to vanish overnight? Again, there is a process of demobilization that was well underway, that is until the Russians started playing their little game of partitions.
This is from 99’, Vladimir Putin had already served as acting prime Minister, along with like 8 other positions. He had already secured his power by 99’ and Yeltsin was well into his drink. Even if you read the article, it’s not Clinton hand picking Putin, it’s Yeltsin selling Putin to the Americans because he was already in control in Russia.
This is the frustrating thing, you could not academically honestly read that article and think that it proves your point. You’re just looking up articles with headlines that are tangentially connected to your claim.
I thought you might actually be interested in honest discourse, but I can see now that you don’t care about honest discourse. You just want to be performative and establish a rhetoric that suits your biases.
We were discussing the history of how NATO formed.
No you were justificating the formation of NATO. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.
It was reflexive to the coup in Czechoslovakia 48’… A defensive alliance is more of an escalation than annexing 2 countries?
WW2 ended in 45’, the Soviets ran the coup in Czechoslovakia in 48’, NATO formed in a direct response to this in 49’.
Not sure what you mean by “annexing”. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union. The USSR “running a coup” is a major stretch, as the communists inside the CSSR were not a minority and were quite capable of doing it themselves. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.
So yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?
The Munich conference was in 38’ prior to the war, and prior to the beginnings of NATO.
Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1939 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all.
I’m not arguing for it, I’m just trying to accurately depict the history of NATO’s relationship with the Russian federation.
Yeah you’re arguing and justificating it by saying shit like this: “You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.”, because it doesn’t matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn’t have been formed in the first place and disbanded at the latest with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact. I’m not arguing NATO didn’t demilitarize after the dissolution of USSR. I’m arguing that the expansion east when there was no threat is - geopolitically speaking - an aggression.
Capitalist don’t want to pay for war equipment they don’t use, there’s just no profit return on military spending unless you are on the supply side like America.
Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war? Because you sound really naive saying things like:
You think an alliance that lasted multiple decades is just going to vanish overnight? Again, there is a process of demobilization that was well underway, that is until the Russians started playing their little game of partitions.
Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian “play their little game of paritions”. You made a friend a foe, which causes war and serves the MIC.
As I said before: you’re reversing cause and effect. Why are you so thick about it?
This is the frustrating thing, you could not academically honestly read that article and think that it proves your point.
It’s because you don’t understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source…
You’re just looking up articles with headlines that are tangentially connected to your claim.
…, because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it. I failed you realize that you’d do regardless of source, because you don’t even grasp the context.
You just want to be performative and establish a rhetoric that suits your biases.
Your “lols” are?
I thought you might actually be interested in honest discourse
No you were telling the story how you think NATO was formed. I am arguing that the NATO formation itself was a major reactionary force of aggression on thinly veiled pretext.
“The Treaty of Brussels was a mutual defense treaty against the Soviet threat at the start of the Cold War. It was signed on 17 March 1948 by Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, and the United Kingdom and was the precursor to NATO. The Soviet threat became immediate with the Berlin Blockade in 1948, leading to the creation of a multinational defense organization, the Western Union Defence Organisation, in September 1948.[4] However, the parties were too weak militarily to counter the Soviet Armed Forces. In addition, the communist 1948 Czechoslovak coup d’état had overthrown a democratic government, and British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin reiterated that the best way to prevent another Czechoslovakia was to evolve a joint Western military strategy. He got a receptive hearing in the United States, especially with the American anxiety over Italy and the Italian Communist Party.[5]”
We have direct quotes from the primary sources, which just so happens to actually align with the actual events recorded in history. You are just participating in revisionist history.
Not sure what you mean by “annexing”. The Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (CSSR) was never formally a part of the Soviet Union.
Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.
The USSR running a coup is a major stretch as the communists inside the CSSR did it. It’s not like those were a minority. And, again, the Warsaw pact was formed later, to which CSSR was indeed a member.
The general expectation was that the Communists would be soundly defeated in the May 1948 elections.[10][11] That September, at the first Cominform meeting, Andrei Zhdanov observed that Soviet victory had helped achieve “the complete victory of the working class over the bourgeoisie in every East European land except Czechoslovakia, where the power contest still remains undecided.”[11] This clearly implied the KSČ should be accelerating its own efforts to take complete power. That notion would be reinforced during the Prague Spring, when party archives were opened and showed that Stalin gave up the whole idea of a parliamentary path for Czechoslovakia when the Communist parties of France and Italy failed to achieve power in 1947 and 1948.[11]
yeah the formation of NATO is a major escalation run by fascists, to serve capitalists interests by being aggressive towards the USSR. Why are you so thick about it?
Because reality matters. Yes, NATO is run by a bunch of shit bags, but that doesn’t change the events of history no matter how much you want it to. The Soviet Union was not perfect, and a lot of their down fall has to do with how they expanded communism in eastern Europe.
There is a reason why Mao lost faith with the Soviets, and there is a reason why he developed his ideology about revolution being tailored to the proletariat of the individual culture.
Yes dude, and Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934, so a non-aggression pact in 1934 from Stalin was him buying time for it was known that Hitler would expand east. Munich was basically screaming the invite for Hitler to go there after all
But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?
Yeah you shitlib you do. by saying shit like this: “You can go and look at the demilitarization of NATO from the 90’s all the way until 2014.”, because it doesn’t matter how much it demilitarized, when it shouldn’t have been formed in the first place and disbanded with the dissolution of the Warsaw pact.
Lol, we’ve been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place… You are just being factitious in avoidance of the actual argument. Either have an actual rebuttal, or just admit you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Did you even bother to check how the US MIC is profiting off of the Ukraine war?
Can you not read what you just quoted? “Unless you are on the supply side like America”. I was talking about Europe, go work on your reading comprehension.
Having it kept around after the fall of the USSR is what made Russian “play their little game of paritions”
Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing…
What evidence do you have to support this claim you keep making? Oh yeah…none. You aren’t even providing context…
understand the context and thus fail to read the subtext of it and the significance of the provided source…
Says the person who keeps mixing around dates.
because when you provide a non-western or anti-capitalist source shitlibs usually to try to invalidate it.
Lol, I totally have a source, she goes to a different school, you wouldn’t know her.
I’m fucking Korean you dolt. I don’t care if it’s non western, so long as it’s accurate and not directly from a blatantly biased source. My family had to immigrate from an actual fascist dictatorship for participating in socialist student uprisings, so I think I’ll be okay with leftist sources.
As for calling me a shitlib.
What revolutionary actions have you taken? What organizing, mutual aid, or mutual protection have you participated in? Being a leftist isn’t about defending your perspective on any particular theory so hard that you alienate other leftist, or even potential leftist. It’s the opposite, it is about proving your ideology is better by showing it, taking care of people, doing things that our capitalist governments won’t.
Lying about history doesn’t do any of that. The internal contradictions in capitalism is self evident. The only thing leftist need to do is provide contrast by showing what mutual cooperation can achieve when enacted upon.
It seems you’re such a lib that you believe “actual events recorded in history” can be presented neutrally, when you can “actual events recorded in history” only in a biased manner. There is no such thing as no-bias. When I say you’re justifying it, it is because you giving the capitalist narrative.
Sorry, defacto annexation, but please feel free to continue being pedantic.
So suddenly you do care about defacto things.
Irrelevant wikipedia quote that doesn’t contradict what I’m saying
Poland was having a non aggression pact with Germany in 1934 But the non aggression pact with Poland and the Soviets happened in 1932, not 1934…?
Poland-Germany not Poland-Soviets
The main point is that Stalin’s non-agression pact with Hitler was long after all other nations appeased and it was obv. Hitler would attack in order to buy time.
Lol, we’ve been arguing this whole time how NATO was formed in the first place…
It’s because you can’t read. I at least been arguing about when NATO was formed. And it was formed on a thing geopolitical Pre-Text (“defacto” pretext as opposed to “dejure” pretext which is easier to justify decisions to other countries)
Lol, yeah they were so upset when they were performing joint peace keeping exercises together, or stopping an ethnic cleansing…
seems you’re such a lib that you believe “actual events recorded in history” can be presented neutrally, when you can “actual events recorded in history” only in a biased manner. There is no such thing as no-bias. When I say you’re justifying it, it is because you giving the capitalist narrative.
Lol, so first you were “libs automatically discount any non western sources”, now you’re claiming that all western sources are biased.
You’ll notice when I quote from wikipedia I’m not quoting subjective opinions, I’m quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don’t even back up your claim. Embarrassing.
because you giving the capitalist narrative.
And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don’t agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.
suddenly you do care about defacto
Lol, no I’m fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.
Poland-Germany not Poland-Soviets
Right, but your sentence structure in the claim suggested that the Soviet Poland non aggression pact was made in reaction to the Nazi non aggression pact. It could have been done mistakenly though, I’m guessing English is not your first language?
The main point is that Stalin’s non-agression pact with Hitler was long after all other nations appeased and it was obv. Hitler would attack in order to buy time.
Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn’t seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.
I would link primary sources, but I’m sure if I used wiki to quote fucking Stalin and his military commanders you would shriek about capitalist biases.
It’s because you can’t read. I at least been arguing about when NATO was formed. And it was formed on a thing geopolitical Pre-Text (“defacto” pretext as opposed to “dejure” pretext which is easier to justify decisions to other countries)
And I’ve linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that’s not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn’t exist if you were operating solely on pretext.
You have not given an iota of evidence to support this theory, other than your rhetoric of Soviet good, NATO bad. Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.
Lol, so no non western sources then? Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?
Lol, what does this have to do with my statement about my family being involved in socialist uprisings?
You should actually read this at some point. It has a pretty good section in it about the privilege of exploitation inherent to your western societies.
Thinking that there’s only one or “true” version of history snief
There’s a difference between the narrative of history and actual historical events you uneducated moron. The point of historic discourse that avoids the brunt of biased historical narrative is to avoid subjective claims, and rely on dates and quotes from primary sources. When we are arguing over the narrative of history we utilize these dates and quotes to strengthen our affirmation of what the narrative should be. That is the point of the actual discussion.
The argument you are utilizing is called alethic relativism, but you are pushing it to the point of rhetorical fallacy. You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument. However, you cannot then claim that your perspective is true.
You should really read some of the theory you claim to uphold. Parenti is good material for introducing leftism to libs, but if you just stop there, all you are going to know is how to be an agnsty teenage agitator. This is not what builds the mutual aid networks actual revolutions start from. Go read setting sites by Scott Crow, that’s where actual leftism starts.
You’re just a spoiled first world brat who is only a “socialist” because it provides you an excuse to validate your laziness. You were born with more opportunities that 99% of the rest of the world, what have you done with it? How have you used that privilege to help others?
You’ve just brought the arrogance and elitist perspective inherent in your people to ideas youve colonized from others. What do you know about being a worker or the world, what work have you done?
It’s funny how I rattled you so much, for saying that you’re carrying water for NATO (while seem to be viewing yourself as leftist lol)
Lol, so first you were “libs automatically discount any non western sources”, now you’re claiming that all western sources are biased.
Both statements are true? Did I claim something to the contrary? All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.
You’ll notice when I quote from wikipedia I’m not quoting subjective opinions, I’m quoting dates and primary sources. While you have done nothing but source from opinion pieces that don’t even back up your claim. Embarrassing.
Wikipedia for example has a heavy western/nato/neoliberal bias. It’s fine to quote it, but it’s not “actual events recorded in history” or not “subjective opinion”. The moment you have an author writing phenomena there’s bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.
And normally when someone presents evidence that supports their affirmation and you don’t agree with it, you would submit your own evidence that supports your rebuttal. You have done nothing but rely on nonsensical rhetoric.
Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.
And I’ve linked plenty of supporting evidence to show that’s not true. I understand pretext, but there are clear historical accounts of action and reaction, something that wouldn’t exist if you were operating solely on pretext.
You copy pasted wikipedia. You’re right there are clear accounts, but these have been done on thin pretext? Just because it happened how it happened doesnt mean it was right to happen? And when the thin pretext is pointed it’s:
Lol, no I’m fine with the original statement. I was just attempting to not argue about such a pedantic dispute.
Details matter. Especially with history, because it can shift narrative. Doesn’t seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.
Soviet good, NATO bad does not mutually exclude NATO from being formed from a genuine reaction of the west.
Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It’s what I’m saying the entire time. It’s a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east. And forming a defensive alliance to counter that is a major escalation in threat. And it resulted in forming the warsaw pact. You keep reversing cause and effect. When I called you out that “annexing” of CSSR didn’t formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you? I don’t understand how you are so obtuse and thick about it?
Ahh I see, so your claiming the Soviets invaded Poland to create a buffer state between that Nazi Poland and Russia? Do you have any evidence to support this? It doesn’t seem likely considering just how caught off guard Stalin was when operation Barbarossa started.
Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop? And no Stalin wasn’t caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time. Nazi Germany was europes economic powerhouse at the beginning of WW2, mind you. You also saw at the beginning of the war how the USSR was taken by the Blitzkrieg. Once the SU industrial centers fully formed to support the war effort you saw how the USSR was starting to crush the nazis.
Lol, so no non western sources then?
What do you mean no western sources? I’ve been providing western sources. But when you do quote at least have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their bias. i.e. NATO biased source saying NATO did a humanitarian action is not the same as a NATO biased source admitting their humanitarian action killed a bunch of people in passive voice.
Also, what does this have to do with Bosnia, which happened in the 90s? Another mistake with keeping your timeline together?
You do understand that after the dissolution of the SU, Russia was friendly and tried to join NATO so they did these operations together? Russia was aspiring to join NATO? 2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he’s making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?
You can claim there is no subjective truth and all facts are viewed subjectively to support ones own argument.
Fighting strawmans I see.
Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there’s no way of ever fully claiming that it is “objective” as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one’s own is also one as such.
The “art” of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to “fill gaps” of what is not being told in the text that you’re reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.
There’s no “objective” perspective as you seem to think, in the sense that you can read about it on wikipedia.
You comprehend the natural world dialectically/“objective”, and interpret it materially. Once it’s materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.
Reading Derrida, Foucault, Hegel/Marx, Stalin, etc. might help.
You seem to have accepted that the NATO perspective is the “truth” when it’s one skewed/subjective truth of many.
You gave no answers to these simple questions:
The overall argument is that NATO is a reaction. First there was the creation of NATO and then came the Warsaw pact chronologically. The USSR, mind you, was an economic alliance. Arguing that the “annexations” is valid pretext to form NATO is carrying water for imperalists, when you yourself admitted that it wasn’t officially annexed. Even if we assume NATO saw the USSR as a threat (it actually was for it’s capitalists as I admitted before) and was created as a result, why keep it, if not for imperialism after the dissolution of the USSR? Seeing the “serious demilitarization” efforts from NATO in the 90s is just naive to keep it around (Could the forces of the MIC be at play?) The US even handpicked Putin so it was all friendly back then, why increase members? For what threat? USSR is dissoloved and Putin was friendly at the time. If you had signs form Putin that expansion is seen as aggressive, why agitate? Saying now that the threat came true is a fucking joke.
You seem to read a lot, but don’t seem to be understanding the things that you read.
I rattled you so much, for saying that you’re carrying water for NATO
Lol, there is that european penchant for self flattery. Rich coming from someone supporting the man who set the death nail of communism in Russia.
All sources are biased and the bias has to be taken into account.
Lol, correctly naming dates where historical events occurred… Biased as fuck dude.
but it’s not “actual events recorded in history” or not “subjective opinion”. The moment you have an author writing phenomena there’s bias to it. Try Derrida or Foucault sometime.
Lol, yes let’s deconstruct the idea of a shared reality where skepticism of subjectivity is high we can’t agree on events occurring on dates recorded by multiple parties. I’m sure that will help this historical discourse move right along.
Also, this is just an appeal to a eurocentric perspective of authority.
Wikipedia is counted evidence I see, while heavy biased sources that have articles not supporting their current current narrative is just opinion. Ok.
Lol, attacking the source of the evidence and not the evidence itself? Also, the last piece of “evidence” you cited was literally an opinion piece, one that didn’t even support your argument.
Doesn’t seem to be very intellectually honest from your side just to dismiss as pedantic.
Defacto literally means in fact. Demanding someone to say in fact a Russian coup rather than Russian coup is being pedantic.
Mf NATO is a reaction of the west ('s capital class). It’s what I’m saying the entire time. It’s a reaction to an economic powerhouse that was forming in the east.
And I’m saying that you haven’t given any evidence to support that theory, while I have given specific events of expansions by the Soviets. When NATO first formed the Soviet state was not the economic powerhouse that we know of post WW2. There’s a reason why the lend and lease program was so important to Soviets after Barbarossa.
When I called you out that “annexing” of CSSR didn’t formally happen and you admitted it, you hopefully do understand how the formation of NATO is at the root of the problem, do you?
Defacto annexation means annexation you dolt.
Yes the evidence for the buffer zone is molotov-ribbentrop?
Lol, this ignores the fact that as relations soured between germany and Russia they actually created a buffer zone in Poland. If all of Poland was supposed to be a buffer zone for an imminent attack, wouldn’t he have moved more troops in the area?
Stalin wasn’t caught off guard as the M-R was a way to buy time to shift the USSR Industrial center closer to the Urals/Crimea. USSR needed the time because shifting Industrial centers takes time.
Yes, I threw away the brunt of my military power for logistical advantage… despite the industrial centers being moved only happened as a reaction to the invasion.
What do you mean no western sources?
Read what you quote… No nonwestern sources.
2007 Putin munich speech marks a shift as Putin starting to realize that they cannot get into the big boy imperial club, when he’s making demands on NATO and not privatizing Russias SOEs?
Except they already took this position in 99 with Kosovo…
Yes there is subjective and an objective truth (which only can be experience, but not materialize as it will become subjective), but to arrive closer at the objective truth you need to take multiple perspectives (subjective truthts) into account , but regardless how many subjective truths you view, there’s no way of ever fully claiming that it is “objective” as there always will be contradictions to resolve. The variety of subjective truths are a mere lense/abstraction of the objective truth. And one’s own is also one as such.
A long winded way to say truth is what I believe to be true.
The “art” of reading subtext is to having to have understood multiple contexts (subjective truths) in order to “fill gaps” of what is not being told in the text that you’re reading, and trying to get a skewed glimpse of the objective truth.
Ahh, fill the gaps with assumptions that suit your biases…
You comprehend the natural world dialectically/“objective”, and interpret it materially. Once it’s materialized, it has been interpreted and thus is subjective.
Lol, eurocentric trash. You should read more about dualism, you would benefit from learning about the mind body problem. Try Yukio Mishima.
You seem to read a lot, but don’t seem to be understanding the things that you read.
Ahh yes, my interpretation is perfect because my brain was damaged by reading too much 19th century eurotrash whom separated the mind from the body because it made sense of their religious worldview.
Euro-brain, Euro-body, Euro-gaming chair, the perfect comrade. It’s funny how much you hate the west, but embody all of its worst qualities. Right down to the dogmatic appeal to rhetoric that allows you to quantify the world into a false dichotomy of physical and metaphysical.
Go kick rocks, I’m done with you and your odd internal contradictions. How can someone be so eurocentric and hate the west so much? I mean I get hating the west… But then believing the same flawed philosophy that caused all the reasons to hate the west, to be valid?Strange.
What makes you think their gonna start now after it’s been going for more than two years and there even having trouble conscripting in western Ukraine ?
If they’ve ran out of volunteers in the more nationalist west how are they going to find them in the occupied territories where patriotism to Ukraine has always been lower?
Because you have to be occupied before you can do guerilla resistance? Also because guerilla activities require fewer personnel than an armed mobilization?
If Ukraine fell to invasion, as in like their lines collapse and they lose the territory they’re currently holding, now every Ukrainian who might consider fighting is already behind enemy lines. Instead of being concentrated physically and very obviously defending themselves you’d have a very pissed off post-invasion population able to act inside of occupied territory. Look at the resistance fighters in occupied France in WWII. Putin isn’t going to have an easy time even if he manages to push an invasion force through.
Good luck holding a country that fights as hard as Ukraine.
That isnt really relevant because Russia would get what they are looking for in the end no matter how much of a resistance there is. All they need to do is finish off their army, and not allow a new government to form and they have achieved their goal.
This framing makes it seem like Biden is going against the majority congressional sentiment, but he is not. The US congress, overall, is supportive of sending military support to Israel, as evidenced by their passing bills other aid bills, which is a slower process.
People in this thread clearly don’t understand what the implications are. There is a very clear danger of war on the European continent that will involve NATO and by proxy the US. Aid for Ukraine is the absolute cheapest option. Europe is not going to just let Ukraine fall and will ramp up their involvement. We already have France willing to send troops.
One who consider a proxy war where thousand people die and a country get destroyed the “cheapest option” tells you how much they are in bad faith. For politicians your life is indeed cheap and something they can trash away for profits
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
When we look at the lead up to WW2, we see a build-up of tension by Germany and attempted appeasement by the other major powers in an effort to avoid another breakout of war in Europe, only a few decades after the first great war ravaged these nations.
Notable events:
Remilitarization of the Rhineland (Mar 1936) – this was a clear power move and violation of the Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1. With no real reaction from the France/Britain, this was a clear indication to Hitler he could continue to push things much further.
Anschluss (Annexation of Austria, Mar 1938) - Germany was prepared to take Austria by force, but managed to do so with only the threat of violence. This was also against the Treaty of Versailles and also had no real reaction from the Allied powers.
Sudetenland conquest (Sept 1938) - Germany pressures Czechoslovakia for pieces of it’s territory that border Germany. British PM finally gets involved, allowing the exchange of territory for a promise of peace. This is the famous " Peace for our time declaration.
Czech/Slovokia split and occupation/control (Mar 1939) - Under further pressure and threat of invasion, Czechoslovakia split and both come under German control.
Invasion of Poland by Germany and USSR (Sept 1939) - First open conflict. France and Britain declare war on Germany, roughly a year after the “Peace for our time” negotiations/declaration that clearly made a difference!
As you can see, in the build-up to WW2, the European powers that opposed German expansion sought alternatives. They even allowed Germany to push its weight around on its neighbors, taking territory from others, and consolidating power. By the time the great powers were forced into conflict by open war in Poland, they were no longer in a position to hope to control Germany at all, doubly so with their apparent new cooperation with the USSR.
Knowing what happened, it’s easy to see that any intervention by France and/or Britain, whether it sparked violence or not, in the early days of German aggression would have almost certainly led to a less powerful Germany, perhaps one that could not have taken over most of Europe so easily.
I think the key take away from all of this is that, modern nations that have a desire for conquest are a danger to all. They are not to be believed, they should not be appeased, they should not be rewarded. Any violence against free nations should be resisted, supported by all free nations, but without escalation to full-blown nuclear war.
The danger of washing our hands of the conflict and saying something like, “Violence bad. End the war. They can have Ukraine/Donetsk/whatever.” is that Russia won’t stop there. They’ll get bigger, stronger, and move on to the next target when they’re ready.
The horrible part about all of this is that the apparent best way to keep long-term violence down is to continue the fighting now. The longer the conflict continues, and the more humiliated Russia becomes, the less likely Russia will chose to do a similar invasion in the future.
Generally, I’d agree with that sentiment. However, what path forward would provide the best way out of the situation and discourage further conflict in the region?
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
If there’s anything to be extrapolated from history is that ramping up for war and fueling authoritarian regimes brings you exactly war and dictatorships.
Any violence against free nations should be resisted
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
The danger of washing our hands
If there’s anyone washing their hands is politicians drinking champagne in dubai next to russian yachts. The same politicians that send people money to ukraine goverement.
Stopping the war industry and ceasing all sort of imperialistic activities, even on one side alone will put at end on most conflicts but every ruler is in for more wealth and power, they don’t want to stop. This does not mean that because someone is doing it everyone has to follow suit, it literally means that every corrupted politician and their government seek war.
I think this is overly naive and simplistic.
So do you agree that palestine should have the rights to defend themself against israel?
(I’m not as well versed in this conflict, but a few thoughts from my perspective)
The situation and power dynamics are quite different there. I don’t have any easy answer unfortunately.
Palestine doesn’t have a conventional army or a means to fight Israel the same way Ukraine is fighting Russia.
Israel’s reaction and occupation of Gaza Strip is horrible.
Historically, Israel’s treatment of Palestinian people has been completely unacceptable.
Hamas’ actions have been awful, both historically and with the first attack in October where they started this conflict. Their attacks routinely target civilians, which is unacceptable.
So, if there are people living in Palestine who want to fight the occupiers, that perspective makes sense to me. So, at the most basic level, yes – I think they should be able to defend themselves. However, Hamas historically seems prioritized only in hurting Israel, and their actions routinely hurt Palestine in a number of ways. Plus, supporting terrorist organizations (like Hamas) with arms/training/etc has worked out poorly for the US in the past.
So, unfortunately, I think there are no “good guys” here (besides the civilians caught up in this who want peace). I think both Israel and Hamas steered into this conflict when alternative course of actions existed. Conflict between these groups has been ongoing for decades and has no good or simple solution.
Yeah, but Russia invaded Ukraine. So what should be done now.
If left to their own devices, Ukraine would be annexed to Russia and surrounding countries would be next. The casualties would probably be less here (not guaranteed) and the quality of life of the Ukrainians would drastically degrade.
If NATO sends boots on the ground, then it becomes a full blown world war with warring countries having lots of nukes. The casualties are enormous with a potential doomsday scenario.
Right now, NATO finance a proxy war. Ukrainians fight back and hard to shut out Russians. They need the tech and financing to do so. If they don’t have it, Russia takes over and we go back to the first scenario. Casualties are high.
There is no good ending where Russia negotiate peace and return home. War fucking sucks, and there is no good answer.
Yeah, but Russia invaded Ukraine. So what should be done now.
What about putting sanction on china for providing russia weapons or on emirates and turkey for allowing russian to just chill there and bypass restrictions?
If left to their own devices, Ukraine would be annexed to Russia and surrounding countries would be next.
Where do you got this from? Is Israel planning to invade the whole middle east after they invaded gaza?
the quality of life of the Ukrainians would drastically degrade.
Would it actually? Ukraine turned into an authoritatian regime under martial law where no man between 18 and 60 can leave the country. There’s probably many brave ukranians fighting for freedom but it’s the ukranian government getting money and weapons.
The casualties are already high and the country is getting destroyed, it’s just not happening in your garden
As long as it doesn’t mess up with their business no government in the world care if russia starts a war. Where’s the aid to gaza as a genocide is happening at the hands of israel? War is a business and politicians wants more of it
Where are the negative consequences for America? Why can America invade any country it wants and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children but for some reason when Russia does it we have to show them they aren’t allowed?
Only America and its allies can start wars and commit genocides?
Because the US does interventionism, fund far-right politicians, etc., Russia (and China) can do as such, and even more. At least the US doesn’t want to “regain it’s old lost territories”.
In fairness it’s a solid criticism considering there’s two kinds of comparisons that aren’t made on equal footing. To argue U.S.'s kind of intervention is the same as the Russias, would be more appropriate to consider Russia’s pre 2014 involvement in Ukraine. If you want to compare full-scale military operations then ZILtoid makes a good point. We haven’t tried to annex another country in a long time.
I didn’t condone the USA’s actions, and it’s clear from your comment that you assume I would. It’s clear to me who is the aggressor in this conflict between Ukraine and Russia, and it’s not Ukraine.
Don’t let your disdain for one imperialist push you over to another.
I’m not talking about just money. Of course in current capitalist society we analyse through the lens of finances. But obviously the cost of war includes the loss of human life. And of course some people will manage to profit financially from war. This isn’t a revolutionary thought.
What I mean is that due to the obligation of being a NATO member, there is no way around having to join war in the EU. Actual boots on the ground, full blown, war machine goes choo-choo war. That costs many hundreds or even thousands of American lives. And yes, billions a day.
If you don’t want that, then having Putin lose in Ukraine in key. It’s key because it will diminish his political backing in Russia.
You don’t understand that the only danger of further war is again from US/NATO. Europe is going to let Ukraine fall because it has no choice. France is a laughing stock. Even what they threatened to send could do nothing.
I honestly don’t think Zelensky is a Nazi. He may be an open Nazi collaborator but I think he sees that as a necessity. Dictator yes, but lebensraum? You mean with the breakaways?
“By proxy” doesn’t change the nature of what he is. Collaboration is complicity. If there’s a Nazi at the table and 10 other people sitting there talking to him, you got a table with 11 Nazis.
Where exactly is the free world? I assume you’re not referring to the bloc of nations currently exterminating the population of their 2 million person concentration camps; the bloc led by the nation with the highest prison population in the world, both in absolute and per capita terms. The bloc that has destroyed, invaded, and couped multiple countries in the past twenty years.
Russia is way worse. I’m in Hungary, and our government tries everything to scrub information about stuff they don’t like, all while putting Project 2025-tier evil stuff into our constitution, meaning it could be pretty much be undone by an armed rebellion, which will very unlikely thanks to what I call “weaponized doomerism” (pushing people into inaction via depression, crushed protests, and underfunded health care system), and “political gaslighting” (basically the method behind “you’ll be more conservative as you get older”).
Just say “civilised world” and make it clear you are a fascist. Atleast be honest.
Russia and non-white world will win, and west fascists will lose. Cry about it as much as you want, this is the last of the good days you monsters will live on this planet.
how the fuck do you manage to claim that the west is the free world™ while it is the empire to blame for the largest amount of worldwide suffering in the second half of the twentieth century? It is responsible for countless invasions, sanction regimes and assassinations with the goal of subjugating foreign nations, as well as courting nazis post ww2, like for example people like klaus barbie or wernher von braun, as well as the entire early government of the frg.
your fantasizing about a supposed military threat from the prc to taiwan and from russia to the rest of europe is nothing but pure projection, since you westoids apparently cant imagine someone acting from a different motivation than your own. the prc has time and time again stated that it prefers a peaceful resolution to the taiwan conflict and the province has never officially declared any grade of independence from the mainland, simply being under a different government, the roc.
russia on the other hand has absolutely no reason to start any military conflicts in western europe, something you would know, if you would even try to understand the lead up to the current situation.
your last sentence honestly just sounds like a thinly veiled blood for the blood god.
sadly, even if you follow russian propaganda to the word, which i dont btw, you would still more often than than not end up with the truth. maybe the west should try to be less evil.
Found this video about how Americans live. North Korean propaganda says we eat birds. All countries distort the truth, even ‘Merica. I wish more people understood this.
the video was actually not made by north korea. it is a parody created by a british comedy director. dprk media typically depicts the us in a fairly accurate manner, or at least more truthfully than how american media portrays korea.
I’m so gullible. I wanted to make coffee out of snow after this video. I thought this was real too, until my wife told me it had to be fake. I wanted it to be real.
i feel ya, western propaganda against korea is sadly hard to undo, considering the sheer amount of it. a great way to do it through is to read korean history, with a wonderful beginners read on the topic being this book. after a while you realize that many of the claims against the dprk are often nothing but simple projection, like for example haircut policing being an actual thing in 1980s south korea.
im sorry to tell you that, but your reasoning is wrong form the first sentence to the last and contains a lot of lies and cia propaganda, which makes it a quite impressive piece of liberalism. lets examine.
already your first statement is wrong, due to the fact that only through studying the history of a particular regime you can begin to make sense of its structure and motivations in accordance with historical and dialectical materialism. it is obvious to anyone, that the us stood for oppression, subjugation and ethnic cleansing from its very inception and hasnt stopped ever since, with them even commiting genocide right now in gaza. with western europe nowadays being nothing more than a satellite of the us, you also mention china and russia, neither of whom are imperialist, since their capitalist economies arent yet in the late stages that make imperialist ambitions possible and necessary. moreover both have historically been victims of western imperialism, and while russia had in fact an imperialist phase until 1917, it never even came close to the atrocities commited by the west.
and no, anti-imperialists like me dont want “revenge”, but justice. such justice can only be achieved by dismantling the illegal settler colony named usa and finally freeing the prison house of nations.
in your second point, you, despite dismissing the study of history previously, try to make references to historical happenings. your only problem is, that you are wrong and end up with nothing but regurgitated cia propaganda, since russia isnt mirroring nazi germany in any way, quite the opposite. the only reason one like you could make such a statement is if you dont know how the nazis operated and who their supporters were. russia is being surrounded and attacked by fascist nato forces, as well as their neonazi proxies, since decades and has shown an incredible amount of restraint in that situation, not only referring from military measures for the longest time, but even trying to cooperate with western powers. the smo is just russia finally making a stand for itself, something that imho should have been done much sooner.
you then compare русский мир to the german lebensraum, concepts that are also entirely unrelated. the german nazi concept is simply a more modern version of the american manifest destiny, an incredibly vile genocidal ideology, that btw also inspired the current zionist colonial project, with the only difference between the two being that the older example succeeded. the russian one meanwhile, while of course being a nationalist concept worthy of criticism, only calls for a sphere of russian cultural and political influence, something that in comparison is rather harmless.
your later notions of alleged russian puppet states demanding to join nato, as well of the ukraine being sovereign after 2014 and most hilariously the west having some semblance of free press that is somehow enlightening the people just look like idealist phantasies with absolutely no ground in reality to me, with me honestly shocked how people are still believing such things after things like operation aerodynamic and operation mockingbird became public information.
the last thing i would like to point out to you is that demands for taiwanese independence should only come from indigenous taiwanese people, not immigrated han chinese who since then unjustly assumed the taiwanese cultural identity. incidentally the indigenous population is one of the core demographics among supporters of reunification with the prc.
and no, i dont claim russia and the prc to be perfect, but they are still obviously preferable over the greatest enemy of mankind that is western imperialism.
This is just sad to hear and i don’t think arguing on the internet is gonna bring is anywhere. I don’t understand where your US fantasy and obsession comes from, siting cases that are from the 50’ and not really related to your point. It sounds like desperate fearmongering by an authoritarian state to stay relevant in front of its population. Ironically, the aggressive actions of russia is what push EU countries away closer to the US as it doesnt leave us any other choice. Russia was a major trading partner and vital to european economies. Ukraine biggest allies after all are from eastern europe(ex russian colonies), the evil imperialist that wants to destroy russia doesnt seem that interested in the conflict as this thread is about. You can it how you want and replace revenge with justice but committing atrocities on your neighbor, is not a productive way for justice. Just shows some imperialistic bloodlust eastern european countries are wary off. Please dont forget that eastern europe are also people with their own minds and that the only thing we want is peace we would love to be closer to russia but its not the path your leaders are willing to go to. Instead creating divisions with whatever usa narrative they are pushing. Have a conflict with the us if thats what you want but please let us be and dont involve us in that.
I will mention gaza as it is so often used as an argument, but the evil controlled press puppet of the CIA is actually quite outraged by the actions of israel, followed by its population having more and more Europeans government taking an in increasingly harder stance, politics are slow but have to follow the heart of the population at some point. Dont forget that russians are the dominant ethnic group in israel since you love talking about historical points. We have our hands quite full with our issues here but seems like people cant stop to ask for our intervention abroad. I would like to remind that eu countries never vetoed anything, rather abstained and stayed out of the conflict as the world has shown us with ukraine that they dont want to intervene in foreign conflict.
Just a point i find facinating, Its quite cute how you describe rusky mir, just think for a second how do you think a average german citizen would have described lebensraum in their times? Try to mature the world is not as black and white as you wish it was. I would like to remind you that the russian leaders called ukraine as a non state that should be eradicated, which i find quite at odd with your ‘pacific description’
Unfortunately and scarily, Russia is showing much of the same pattern as Germany in its most dark past, with the ruski mir looking more and more like the german lebensraum.
When you totally know what the lebensraum was.
The Nazis’ lebensraum project wasn’t just taking over a bunch of land in Europe, it was a settler colonial project inspired by the American policies of systematic forced displacement and extermination of the native populations under the doctrine manifest destiny.
Lebensraum was a pseudo-scientific racist theory formulated by pro-colonialism far right German thinkers, according to the lebensraum theory, a race needs a certain amount of space for themselves in order to attain their full potential and therefore need to take their necessary territory from “lesser” races by force. To summarise rapidly how it was developed, the German colonialists basically went “Look at America, they expanded to the west basically exterminating every native population in the way and replacing they with white settlers and now they’re super rich and powerful, so if we exterminate a bunch of native populations, take over their land and put native Germans in their place, we should become super rich and powerful too”.
The idea was put into practice in Namibia, then one of the German empire’s colonies, resulting in the genocide of the Herero and Nama.
Fast forward a bit, Adolph Hitler was visited in prison by one of the main colonialist thinkers behind lebensraum theory and Hitler was rapidly convinced to adopt it.
And that’s how was born the genocidal project of the Nazis in eastern Europe, just as their mentor the United States had rid “their” land of “lesser” north Americans natives to expand westward and make way for the “superior” whites, so would Germany rid eastern Europe of Jews and Slavs to make way for the “Aryans”.
Now comes the question: is Russia doing any of that? Does the Russian government believe in and promote a theory that rank races to justify the extermination of “lesser” ones? Is Russia shoving Ukrainians (or anyone else) in concentration camps and “reservation”? Do they steal Ukrainians houses and invite Russian natives to go live in the stolen houses in Ukraine?
The answer to all of those questions is no. If you think it’s yes you need to demonstrate it, saying “they look just like Nazis” without drawing any actual parallels between them is no better than saying “anyone I don’t like is a Nazi”.
The fact that all of russia’s puppet state demanded to join NATO (BTW: you cannot be invited it only works by writing an official demand to join and approval by all member state), is a revealing fact.
If a NATO country can somehow influence the elections and public opinion on NATO in those so called “Russian puppets”, which they very much can, they can make sure to have pro-NATO politicians in power who will demand a NATO membership, that way they effectively force the country to join while making it look like it was voluntary.
As we saw in Ukraine, Russia does not need any reason to invade a sovereign nation (their reason for invading looking also stangely like german justification for poland invasion)
“Russia does not need any reason to invade[…] their reason for invading looking also stangely like…”
Look, if you’re gonna spew bullshit, can’t you at least keep it strait and somewhat coherent?
Putin didn’t just wake up and decide he was feeling like invading something that day, whether you like it or not they had actual reasons to do it and the fact that you or I may or may not think those reasons are not legitimate does not matter since neither you nor I have a say in the Kremlin.
Also, once again you say “they look like Nazis” without showing why you think they look like Nazis. How are their reasons similar? Russia’s stated reasons for invading are to prevent all of their western frontier neighbors to become part of a military alliance they deem aggressive to them and to stop the killing of ethnic Russians in the Donbas and Luhansk regions and overthrow the current far right government of Ukraine, how is that similar to the Nazi’s excuses to invade Poland?
The countless horrors of torture, rape, murder and brainwashing by the russian state, seems to prove their reasoning right.
[citation needed]
That wouldn’t be the first time the west has falsely accused an enemy of those things so I’m really gonna need a source for that.
I do not claim that the west is perfect, with the actions of the united states and other in recent times, but claiming that russia or china have clean hands would be outright hypocritical.
You claim that the west is systematically better than Russia, China and other countries that the west considers rivals or enemy (funny coincidence that those are all countries the west don’t like isn’t it) and when we demonstrate to you that this is bullshit since the west has literally done almost every single thing you accuse China, Russia, etc of, often in worst and more than once, you go “Ha but I think the west is bad too” so that you can continue pretending to be objective even after we expose you massive pro-west bias.
Thanks to the free press, the western world made their population aware of this wrong actions and helped steer them in the right direction.
The press in the west is not free, it’s the private property of a handful of billionaires who, since they are their private properties, have complete control over what is or is not published in their outlets. I’d even say that given that the capitalists are the ruling class in the west, privately owned medias are really state owned medias with extra steps.
Not to mention the fact that western outlet are often in contact with organs of western governments, most notoriously with the CIA, who often dictate what the outlets should publish.
Just look at how they report on the genocide of Palestinians, does that look like fair and unbiased reporting to you? Those that look free pro Israel bias?
great analysis, comrade. i would like to point out though, that racist pseudoscience didnt start with the us, but rather that they were sadly able to inherit a quite rich tradition of this vile bullshit, ideas that were previously pushed by british intelligentsia. the idea of concentration camps was also arguably pioneered in america with the native american reservations.
Also if Europe isn’t concerned about Russia, why has Europe’s defense spending drastically gone up? Clearly there is more going on than your blase attitude is implying.
China is already bullying the Philippines too out of our own territorial waters, and they have already caused severe injuries to our countrymen. They literally want an entire sea to themselves and leave us with none. Just look at their nine dash line.
Edit: Here’s their nine-dash-line, they even want Malaysia’s sea, which is a long way away from chinese mainland, while they want seas close to the land territories of so many SEA nations.
It was recently on local news, but that’s not the only conflict that involved water cannons and ships. From the article you can see Vietnam— they once saved filipino fishermen from potentially drowning. (from Philippines) rappler.com/…/233079-how-filipino-boat-crew-was-s… (from Vietnam) e.vnexpress.net/…/all-gestures-no-words-as-vietna…. If china continues their actions, there are bound to be casualties. And if that happens, I’m not sure any of us will forgive them.
I’d pay good money to watch the Anglos crash and burn tbh. Like, PPV amounts of money. At this point it might be the only way to avert climate collapse; if possible at all, and I have no material reason to want to see you propagate or prosper. Die faster; and do a backflip on your way down.
You mean the “free world” that has Assange, Pablo González and lots of other journalists jailed? The same free world that has destroyed every country that didn’t fall in line with US interests?
There wasn’t a problem here until the US-backed coup in 2014 and subsequent killing of eastern Ukrainians and Crimeans (if you’re wondering why Crimeans overwhelmingly support Russia) by the coup gov for resisting, which also doesn’t respect the Minsk agreements to stay neutral.
You know that Lemmy is the last sanctuary of the most insane people ridiculed everywhere else where you see comments like that having positive rating lol.
Ukraine became reliant on US military aid after Russia invaded in 2014 with the help of separatists they funded. The same strategy they have employed in Georgia and Moldova.
There is zero evidence that the US did any coup in Ukraine. There is plenty for it being a revolution against Yanukovych after he broke his election promises and brutally supressed protests caused by that. That in turn triggered a full blown revolution.
The Minsk agreements were never honored by Russia as one of the clauses was for Russia to remove their troops from the regions, which never happened.
Post 2014 those regions were occupied by Russia. Ukraine was fighting against an occupation, not bombing civilians for fun.
Eastern Ukraine has never wanted to join Russia, it was occupied in 2014. Yanukovych was elected with the promise of closer economic ties with Europe, not Russia.
How is not a single part of your post true? Debunking bullshit always takes longer but I guess that’s the strategy with disinformation.
Apparently the mods on lemmy.ml support Russian disinformation as this got removed with the comment “Misinfo-see nuland/pyatt call”. I have heard that call in its full context as it gets brought up as the only evidence. What it actually ended up being were 2 US politicians discussing that the most likely person to take over as Yanukovych fled took over. Literally anyone familiar with the politics in Ukraine can come to the same conclusion.
Gaddafi is another example yes, but let’s not have any sympathy for a horrible dictator that tortured and abused his subjects to the point where they sodomized him with a bayonet.
The NTC initially claimed Gaddafi died from injuries sustained in a firefight when loyalist forces attempted to free him, although a video of his last moments shows rebel fighters beating him and one of them sodomizing him with a bayonet before he was shot several times.
Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power were the three principal advocates of war against Libya in 2011, setting the North African nation on a free fall ever since. Demonstrations broke out in some Libyan cities against the government of late Muammar Gaddafi in February 2011, in what became known as the “Arab Spring” that engulfed the region. However, Libya’s promised spring turned into a destructive autumn during which Gaddafi was murdered on 20 October, 2011, and Libya was left anguishing in lawlessness, courtesy of the three women.
You mean insurgents funded by the west after having them give up their nuclear deterrence because it posed a major threat to capitalism/imperialism in the region.
Libya went from one of the poorest countries in the world to having the highest human development index in Africa by 2010 under the socialist government. Housing and healthcare were made a human right and youth literacy reached pretty much 100%.
Yes, I’ll have sympathy for the country that was basically extorted by the west through brutal sanctions into disarming itself so it could be invaded and destroyed, as any human should.
He made it better for Arabs, everyone else was treated horribly. But hey I guess being a dictator is fine as long as the people you like are being treated okay and fuck everyone else. How very Modi of you.
I wouldn’t put it that way exactly. Ukraine was a constituent part of the USSR, and eastern Ukraine was a major industrial hub. I don’t know the history of it, but perhaps giving the nukes to Russia was part of the deal made in the Post-Soviet transition in Ukraine.
Ukraine was very much at peace with Russia as it always had been before the 2014 coup and the resulting fascist gov that didn’t care about such agreements.
Russia has no right to carry out a genocide—any more than Ukraine had the right to carry one out on people of the Donbas for almost a decade—but then again Russia isn’t carrying out one, despite what Five Eyes governments & corporate media insist.
I will concede that there are a few fascist elements in Russia, but they aren’t in power, and one of their most well-known figures (to Westerners at least) recently died.
.
Neither Navanly nor the Azov Battalion are aberrations: the US has been maintaining fascist cells in Europe our whole lives, as a backstop against Europe ever gaining a real independence from the US, or worse, becoming socialist.
In particular, the US doesn’t want Europe and Russia to develop closer ties, because it doesn’t want the “Eurasian landmass” to ever cohere, because it would become too self-sufficient and powerful for the US to control. Zbigniew Brzezinski laid this theory out when the Soviet Union fell. That’s why the US tried to convince Europe not to build Nord Stream 2 and then later not to turn it on, why Biden said he would “bring an end to it” if Russia invaded, and why they ultimately did bring an end to it.
The US also very much wants regime change or balkanization in Russia so it can resume its neocolonial plundering of it, which started under Yeltson and ended under Putin.
Why are you citing Navalny (granted, fascist) and not Dugin, Rogozin and Prokhanov who are actually close to the current government?
And let’s not forget about Putin’s obsession with Ilyin, who, and I don’t want to put words incorrectly here, is a literal fascist, like a canonical one.
Bullshit. Dugin is a Western chauvinist fascist who is ideologically aligned with the Ukrainian coup government and the Ukrainian Nazis who terrorized the Donbas for almost a decade before Russia intervened two years ago. In what universe is he Putin’s “right-hand man”?
The US would absolutely love to have a regime change that put Dugin in power, because he would invite the American shock therapists back in to finish the plundering that they started in the ’90s under Yeltsin, and that Putin put an end to.
My agenda is (1) to save the lives & livelihoods of working class people and (2) anti-imperialism. My agenda is not to carry water for Ukraine’s neoliberal government, which has allowed Global North capitalists to neocolonize it to the detriment of its people.
You mean the Donbas where Ukraine was fighting Russia after they annexed Crimea?
The Donbas is not Crimea; they don’t even touch.
In 2014 the US facilitated a coup, installing a far-right comprador government, because the democratically elected government was insufficiently subservient to US interests. In response, Russia annexed Crimea, a region whose history and people were more aligned with Russia. There wasn’t much fighting involved because the people of Crimea largely welcomed this.
But getting back to the Donbas: how is bombing apartment complexes in one’s own country for nearly a decade “fighting Russia”? That was a neonazi ethnic cleansing project with the support of their own government and the CIA.
In the 1990s he formulated the strategic case for buttressing the independent statehood of Ukraine, partially as a means to prevent a resurgence of the Russian Empire,[citation needed] and to drive Russia toward integration with the West, promoting instead “geopolitical pluralism” in the space of the former Soviet Union. He developed “a plan for Europe” urging the expansion of NATO, making the case for the expansion of NATO to the Baltic countries.
Any ideas where I can find out more about Brzenzinski’s plans after the fall of the Soviet Union?
there are fascists in Ukraine, like in a lot of countries
Most countries don’t have a fascist government that violently suppresses the left. Israel and Ukraine are about the only ones (and maybe Modi’s India to an extent?) right now.
It’s not about a “right” to invade. The point is this was the only option left with a coup gov that doesn’t care about prior peace agreements, kills people for resisting (like Eastern Ukrainians in DPR & LPR and Crimeans), and is being blocked by the US and UK from negotiating.
Add comment