|
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. |
On May 18 2024 23:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2024 21:16 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed -you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint OK, you think it's justified because "no agency due to orbital mind control lasers*." *or other equivalent methods.
None of what he said is even remotely true. The color revolutions were genuine protests. People have agency. Not everything is a CIA plot. The civilians who died during Maidan were killed by Berkut officers. There was a thorough investigation. The perpetrators are known by name. They were convicted in absentia after they fled to Russia. There was no ban on the Russian language either. That's another Russian talking point which Kremlin shill like to pull out of their asses.
As for denying that Assad is a dictator and the claim that Ukraine is more dictatorial, that's just asinine. It's hard to even comment on that.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 18 2024 23:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2024 21:16 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed -you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint OK, you think it's justified because "no agency due to orbital mind control lasers*." *or other equivalent methods.
-no, this is my knowledge long after the start of the war, now that I'm completely convinced in these claims.
The thing that has justified the war for me is the idea that everything russian - including state, culture and mentality has to be demolished; this was quite popular in media in 2022, especially after Ukraine has had a series of successes.
>>your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows
-sorry, my typo here
On May 18 2024 23:32 maybenexttime wrote:
None of what he said is even remotely true. The color revolutions were genuine protests. People have agency. Not everything is a CIA plot. The civilians who died during Maidan were killed by Berkut officers. There was a thorough investigation. The perpetrators are known by name. They were convicted in absentia after they fled to Russia. There was no ban on the Russian language either. That's another Russian talking point which Kremlin shill like to pull out of their asses.
As for denying that Assad is a dictator and the claim that Ukraine is more dictatorial, that's just asinine. It's hard to even comment on that.
On Feb 11 2024 maybenexttime wrote:
You are wrong about that. You think I'm prejudiced towards Russians. I am not. I used to be quite sympathetic towards Russians and Russian culture, if not the Russian state. I studied Russian for three semesters at the uni. I listen to Russian music and read Russian literature (in Russian). If Russia were a normal country, I would've been considered a Russophile
...
While you certainly know more Russians, I'm not sure you know more about Russia.
-sorry, I'd be too much of a clown to answer you seriously after this one; you need a good reality check
|
United States42691 Posts
The west attempted to be friends with Russia but Russia saw friendship as weakness. 19th century mentality in the 21st century. Russia doesn’t need to be destroyed because it’s Russia. There’s no intrinsic hate for Russia. The Russian cancer must be excised because it is incompatible with living in freedom and peace. Nobody wanted this result, people kept giving Russia more chances long after it became clear we were heading here. But there are no more options. It is for the sake of the people living in Russia that the cancer be removed.
|
|
|
On May 19 2024 08:20 a_ch wrote:-sorry, I'd be too much of a clown to answer you seriously after this one; you need a good reality check
That would check out considering you're a fascist clown. ;-)
|
On May 19 2024 08:20 a_ch wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2024 23:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 18 2024 21:16 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed -you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint OK, you think it's justified because "no agency due to orbital mind control lasers*." *or other equivalent methods. -no, this is my knowledge long after the start of the war, now that I'm completely convinced in these claims. The thing that has justified the war for me is the idea that everything russian - including state, culture and mentality has to be demolished; this was quite popular in media in 2022, especially after Ukraine has had a series of successes. >>your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows -sorry, my typo here Show nested quote +On May 18 2024 23:32 maybenexttime wrote:
None of what he said is even remotely true. The color revolutions were genuine protests. People have agency. Not everything is a CIA plot. The civilians who died during Maidan were killed by Berkut officers. There was a thorough investigation. The perpetrators are known by name. They were convicted in absentia after they fled to Russia. There was no ban on the Russian language either. That's another Russian talking point which Kremlin shill like to pull out of their asses.
As for denying that Assad is a dictator and the claim that Ukraine is more dictatorial, that's just asinine. It's hard to even comment on that. Show nested quote +On Feb 11 2024 maybenexttime wrote:
You are wrong about that. You think I'm prejudiced towards Russians. I am not. I used to be quite sympathetic towards Russians and Russian culture, if not the Russian state. I studied Russian for three semesters at the uni. I listen to Russian music and read Russian literature (in Russian). If Russia were a normal country, I would've been considered a Russophile
...
While you certainly know more Russians, I'm not sure you know more about Russia.
-sorry, I'd be too much of a clown to answer you seriously after this one; you need a good reality check
There is never a good war as Benjamin Franklin said. Ukraine is a sovereign territory, if they want the country to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian, it's part of their self-determination as long as they don't kill people Hitler/Stalin/Putin style.
I'm sorry you fell so low to justify a war.
I don't like it when a language has a mix of cyrillic and Latin (Macedonian and Ukrainian) but if they like it, let them be. It's small "inconvenience" and it's definitely a small sum to pay rather than start a war although I'm sure Putin's regime isn't doing it for the alphabet. He is doing it for additional territory as if Russia wasn't big enough already. He is simply desperate to have his name in history books next to other famous Russian rulers.
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
On May 19 2024 17:35 SC-Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2024 08:20 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 23:00 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:On May 18 2024 21:16 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed -you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint OK, you think it's justified because "no agency due to orbital mind control lasers*." *or other equivalent methods. -no, this is my knowledge long after the start of the war, now that I'm completely convinced in these claims. The thing that has justified the war for me is the idea that everything russian - including state, culture and mentality has to be demolished; this was quite popular in media in 2022, especially after Ukraine has had a series of successes. >>your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows -sorry, my typo here On May 18 2024 23:32 maybenexttime wrote:
None of what he said is even remotely true. The color revolutions were genuine protests. People have agency. Not everything is a CIA plot. The civilians who died during Maidan were killed by Berkut officers. There was a thorough investigation. The perpetrators are known by name. They were convicted in absentia after they fled to Russia. There was no ban on the Russian language either. That's another Russian talking point which Kremlin shill like to pull out of their asses.
As for denying that Assad is a dictator and the claim that Ukraine is more dictatorial, that's just asinine. It's hard to even comment on that. On Feb 11 2024 maybenexttime wrote:
You are wrong about that. You think I'm prejudiced towards Russians. I am not. I used to be quite sympathetic towards Russians and Russian culture, if not the Russian state. I studied Russian for three semesters at the uni. I listen to Russian music and read Russian literature (in Russian). If Russia were a normal country, I would've been considered a Russophile
...
While you certainly know more Russians, I'm not sure you know more about Russia.
-sorry, I'd be too much of a clown to answer you seriously after this one; you need a good reality check There is never a good war as Benjamin Franklin said. Ukraine is a sovereign territory, if they want the country to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian, it's part of their self-determination as long as they don't kill people Hitler/Stalin/Putin style. I'm sorry you fell so low to justify a war. I don't like it when a language has a mix of cyrillic and Latin (Macedonian and Ukrainian) but if they like it, let them be. It's small "inconvenience" and definitely worth "paying" rather than start a war although I'm sure Putin's regime isn't doing it for the alphabet. He is doing it for additional territory as if Russia wasn't big enough already. He is simply desperate to have his name in history books next to other famous Russian rulers.
>>There is never a good war as Benjamin Franklin said
-I agree; and if you've been reading this thread with attention, you note a number of comments from me with the same attitude
>>Ukraine is a sovereign territory, if they want the country to speak Ukrainian instead of Russian
-if the government does what the wast majority of a country doesn/t want to do - it is their right, but just don't call it a democracy. Their right to do what they want ends when it affects people outside. The idea that the war should demolish deep structures of the russian society makes clear that the ukrainian conflict is not about a sovereign country trying to self-defend, but a mercenary trying to kill my country.
>> it's part of their self-determination as long as they don't kill people Hitler/Stalin/Putin style.
-check the number of civilians killed in Donbass in 2014-2022. Then look for a news about the continuing terrorist attacks on Belgorod and others.
>>I'm sorry you fell so low to justify a war.
-and I feel sorry for people, who after two years of the conflict have not been able to find a bit of reliable information, - and continue to repeat propaganda narrative
|
Russian Federation240 Posts
|
On May 18 2024 23:00 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2024 21:16 a_ch wrote:On May 18 2024 20:11 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
Propaganda and soft influence is not a mind control laser and events such as Maidan require if not a majority in the population at least enough public and central support to succeed -you greately underestimate these things that you call the "soft power". The color revolution is a well-known technology, authored by Sharp, which is deeply disturbing at its immorality. In the case of Ukrainian Maidan revolt, for example, the provocateurs had killed 100 protesters as a false flag operation to enrage the remaining mass. This is perfectly clear now, as the criminal prosecution of this matter has been closed by the new government in Ukraine. This is also why your point of "majority of population" is not entirely valid; all that is needed for a coup is to gather a crowd of ~100000 people, which does not even have to be representative of any ideas that the aspiring leaders plan to implement; for example - the ban of russian language Even your rhetoric about the "dicator in Syria" shows an evidence that you are under the spell, because once you start to research, you'll see that modern day "dictatorship vs democracy" is a false dichotomia. For example, the current regime in Ukraine is by all means far more dictatorial, than Assad's at any timepoint That is some outrageous nonsense. Do you have evidence for any of those claims?
Of course he doesnt. He's a Russian.
I dunno why we keep entertaining these fascists. They are not arguing in good faith, they just wanna blur the lines while their shit country is committing genocide.
|
On May 19 2024 21:40 Luolis wrote:
Of course he doesnt. He's a Russian. This is kinda uncalled for, no?
Or do you really think every Russian is like that?
|
It's cute how people pretend that coups only happen if 'everyone in the country wants it', or that deposing a government has to be a good thing because it's the will of the people or something, as if US & friends hasn't taken down countless democratically elected governments that were generally well liked by their populations, or at least much less unpleasant than what followed said take downs.
The current 'rules based order' was created and is perpetuated by beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with it; true, in the recent years the beatdowns are more often of the economic kind, but they are beatdowns none the less. It has nothing to do with 'morality' or 'what is right' -- and the fact that so many people keep buying into the 'good guys vs bad guys' narrative is honestly mind boggling to me. Did we support contras in Argentina because that was the 'moral' thing to do? Did we douse Vietnam in Agent Orange because they deserved it? Did we tank the Japanese economy because they weren't free and peaceful enough? How about the arms and money support for Saddam Hussein, was that the moral choice? Or the subsequent invasion and killing of Saddam Hussein? Is the current trade war against China really about 'good vs evil', or the current conflict against Russia?
The double standards even spread well beyond politics. Just look at how quick people in Western nations are to discount any opinions critical of Israel as 'antisemitism' -- yet at the same time, we're apparently completely okay turning the very word 'Russian' into an insult and posting shit like 'Russia is a cancer that must be excised.' Do you not see how this is problematic?
|
United States42691 Posts
On May 20 2024 00:49 Salazarz wrote:
It's cute how people pretend that coups only happen if 'everyone in the country wants it', or that deposing a government has to be a good thing because it's the will of the people or something, as if US & friends hasn't taken down countless democratically elected governments that were generally well liked by their populations, or at least much less unpleasant than what followed said take downs.
The current 'rules based order' was created and is perpetuated by beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with it; true, in the recent years the beatdowns are more often of the economic kind, but they are beatdowns none the less. It has nothing to do with 'morality' or 'what is right' -- and the fact that so many people keep buying into the 'good guys vs bad guys' narrative is honestly mind boggling to me. Did we support contras in Argentina because that was the 'moral' thing to do? Did we douse Vietnam in Agent Orange because they deserved it? Did we tank the Japanese economy because they weren't free and peaceful enough? How about the arms and money support for Saddam Hussein, was that the moral choice? Or the subsequent invasion and killing of Saddam Hussein? Is the current trade war against China really about 'good vs evil', or the current conflict against Russia?
The double standards even spread well beyond politics. Just look at how quick people in Western nations are to discount any opinions critical of Israel as 'antisemitism' -- yet at the same time, we're apparently completely okay turning the very word 'Russian' into an insult and posting shit like 'Russia is a cancer that must be excised.' Do you not see how this is problematic?
Not the worst take but still a very bad take. The idea that there can never be bad guys is peak “USA bad before therefore other guy presumably not”. The existence of grey does not somehow disprove black. Just overall a very stupid post.
|
On May 20 2024 00:49 Salazarz wrote:
It's cute how people pretend that coups only happen if 'everyone in the country wants it', or that deposing a government has to be a good thing because it's the will of the people or something, as if US & friends hasn't taken down countless democratically elected governments that were generally well liked by their populations, or at least much less unpleasant than what followed said take downs.
The current 'rules based order' was created and is perpetuated by beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with it; true, in the recent years the beatdowns are more often of the economic kind, but they are beatdowns none the less. It has nothing to do with 'morality' or 'what is right' -- and the fact that so many people keep buying into the 'good guys vs bad guys' narrative is honestly mind boggling to me. Did we support contras in Argentina because that was the 'moral' thing to do? Did we douse Vietnam in Agent Orange because they deserved it? Did we tank the Japanese economy because they weren't free and peaceful enough? How about the arms and money support for Saddam Hussein, was that the moral choice? Or the subsequent invasion and killing of Saddam Hussein? Is the current trade war against China really about 'good vs evil', or the current conflict against Russia?
The double standards even spread well beyond politics. Just look at how quick people in Western nations are to discount any opinions critical of Israel as 'antisemitism' -- yet at the same time, we're apparently completely okay turning the very word 'Russian' into an insult and posting shit like 'Russia is a cancer that must be excised.' Do you not see how this is problematic?
You don't even make a distinction between coups and revolts. In a sufficiently small and unstable country CIA can absolutely convince a part of the already existing power structure (usually the army) to depose the leader and install a new one.
It's a lot harder to rally enough shit to challenge and bring down the entire existing structure if they are all on the same page.
Syria had elements of high unemployment, drought, corruption, sectarianism, the Kurdish minority, increasing economic inequality and poverty, religious extremism, youths dissatisfied with the system and many other factors and of course the influence of the arab spring happening in the region. And maybe the CIA?
It's definitely not as simple as Syria and Ukraine both having happy populations and then CIA comes along with the NGOs and you get a popular revolt and a civil war. If that was the case why did people revolt against regimes the US wanted to stay in power (Egypt, Yemen for example)?
My view on reality is that it's always complex and anytime you get a simple explanation it's usually pure bullshit.
It's also cute that people think I'm some kind of idealist.
My personal view is still that the parties that wants this war to end fast is Europe, Ukraine and Russia (different outcomes of course).
And the parties who clearly gain from a protracted conflict is USA, China and India.
I still find it suspicious that it's always the US pushing red lines and delaying aid and it always changes right after Russia commits harder.
If 3 months into the war there had been a public statement that tanks, artillery, aircraft would be coming shortly Russia would have had an excellent excuse (and reason) to back out. Zelensky is even calling out the fact that aid is always to late to win (but just in time to sustain).
Of course it's a multifaceted problem and that the US is gaining massively from this war is likely only a small part of the reason but somewhere under the pentagon there's a SCIF full of generals, mid level CIA directors and MIC representatives jerking off to the idea of Russia spending another 2 years in Ukraine with attrition warfare while their refining industry is getting droned.
Probably the same thing on the other side of the globe in Beijing except they don't have to do it themselves because the Russian delegation is giving them handjobs.
|
Canada11350 Posts
I think it's too conspiracy minded to think that because there is a world in which the US benefits from a prolonged war; therefore the US is acting with deliberate intention to prolong it. Wouldn't the US just as benefit from the Russian army being absolutely flattened by the Ukrainians and a quick surrender? I mean who really cares that as the war prolongs Russia is forced to refurbish their mothballed tanks? They were just rusting away anyways. If any thing, a prolonged war that doesn't press Russia enough is allowing Russia to modernize their army and update outdated thinking.
There are a lot of factors contributing to a democracy being slow on the uptake to help in the war.
1) Past experience with war: Ukraine was pretty close on the heals of the fall of Afghanistan where the US watched a whole bunch of their equipment go to the Taliban. In the very early stages of the war, it was not at all clear if Ukraine would get rolled and any equipment would just get donated to Russia's May 9 Victory Parade.
2) Then later- quality of leadership. We might not have a Neville Chamberlain, but probably not a Churchill either. How boldly will the leadership act?
3) Popular support- there's a reason dictatorships like Russia can militarize very quickly and democracies take a lot longer to come on line. They actually have to contend with the will of the people. Roosevelt certainly wanted to join much sooner than most of his country. And in the present the US wound up locked in budget fights.
Was that just for show and both sides were trying to delay the budget to give Russia breathing room to draw out the fight? They've had the will we/ won't we shut down the government seems like every year for the last number of years so I don't see evidence of long term thinking in Congress. Just the same old fight over the budget. The only difference is post-Trump has seen a more isolationist view emerge from the Republicans (beyond the lone Ron Paul in the days of yore) and therefore Ukraine gets caught in the latest episode of budget fights.
|
The US was trying damn hard to dissuade Russia from invading. It's very plausible that there are simply people in the US government who are afraid of the conflict spiraling into a direct war between NATO and Russia, which they're openly saying.
|
On May 20 2024 05:25 Falling wrote:
I think it's too conspiracy minded to think that because there is a world in which the US benefits from a prolonged war; therefore the US is acting with deliberate intention to prolong it. Wouldn't the US just as benefit from the Russian army being absolutely flattened by the Ukrainians and a quick surrender? I mean who really cares that as the war prolongs Russia is forced to refurbish their mothballed tanks? They were just rusting away anyways. If any thing, a prolonged war that doesn't press Russia enough is allowing Russia to modernize their army and update outdated thinking.
There are a lot of factors contributing to a democracy being slow on the uptake to help in the war.
1) Past experience with war: Ukraine was pretty close on the heals of the fall of Afghanistan where the US watched a whole bunch of their equipment go to the Taliban. In the very early stages of the war, it was not at all clear if Ukraine would get rolled and any equipment would just get donated to Russia's May 9 Victory Parade.
2) Then later- quality of leadership. We might not have a Neville Chamberlain, but probably not a Churchill either. How boldly will the leadership act?
3) Popular support- there's a reason dictatorships like Russia can militarize very quickly and democracies take a lot longer to come on line. They actually have to contend with the will of the people. Roosevelt certainly wanted to join much sooner than most of his country. And in the present the US wound up locked in budget fights.
Was that just for show and both sides were trying to delay the budget to give Russia breathing room to draw out the fight? They've had the will we/ won't we shut down the government seems like every year for the last number of years so I don't see evidence of long term thinking in Congress. Just the same old fight over the budget. The only difference is post-Trump has seen a more isolationist view emerge from the Republicans (beyond the lone Ron Paul in the days of yore) and therefore Ukraine gets caught in the latest episode of budget fights.
It's only conspiratorial if you believe US to be one entity with one will, or a hive mind if you like. But it isn't, far from it. There are people with their own agendas pushing in all directions. The people who benefit from a long outdrawn far isn't any governing body, but the defence industry, which is a literal trillion dollar industry, and with a lot of network, power and will to get their ways. In most other countries you'd call it corruption, in US it's legal and called sponsorship. The other direction that is being pulled is of course the Republicans, who are equally influenced by said defence industry, Russia, and sheer incompetence. And then you have the Democrats, currently in power, who, at least on the surface, are seemingly not incredibly happy with the current situation, but struggles to get anything done about it.
I don't think it's particularly conspiratorial to believe that there are a lot of people with influence and power in the US who both benefits from the war and wants it to continue at this stalemate level
|
On May 20 2024 02:54 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2024 00:49 Salazarz wrote:
It's cute how people pretend that coups only happen if 'everyone in the country wants it', or that deposing a government has to be a good thing because it's the will of the people or something, as if US & friends hasn't taken down countless democratically elected governments that were generally well liked by their populations, or at least much less unpleasant than what followed said take downs.
The current 'rules based order' was created and is perpetuated by beating the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with it; true, in the recent years the beatdowns are more often of the economic kind, but they are beatdowns none the less. It has nothing to do with 'morality' or 'what is right' -- and the fact that so many people keep buying into the 'good guys vs bad guys' narrative is honestly mind boggling to me. Did we support contras in Argentina because that was the 'moral' thing to do? Did we douse Vietnam in Agent Orange because they deserved it? Did we tank the Japanese economy because they weren't free and peaceful enough? How about the arms and money support for Saddam Hussein, was that the moral choice? Or the subsequent invasion and killing of Saddam Hussein? Is the current trade war against China really about 'good vs evil', or the current conflict against Russia?
The double standards even spread well beyond politics. Just look at how quick people in Western nations are to discount any opinions critical of Israel as 'antisemitism' -- yet at the same time, we're apparently completely okay turning the very word 'Russian' into an insult and posting shit like 'Russia is a cancer that must be excised.' Do you not see how this is problematic? Not the worst take but still a very bad take. The idea that there can never be bad guys is peak “USA bad before therefore other guy presumably not”. The existence of grey does not somehow disprove black. Just overall a very stupid post.
You're missing the point. There are plenty of 'bad guys' in this world, ain't nobody is arguing that. The problem is, people like you pretend the reason NATO got involved in the conflict in Ukraine because it was the right thing to do, and then continue to pretend like they're doing whatever because they are 'good guys' while Russians are the 'bad guys' which just doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all if you consider everything else that's happening in the world.
This doesn't mean that Russian invasion is rightful or justified -- far from it, and honestly I'm sick of repeating that I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general and definitely bad in this particular case -- but pretending the only reason this invasion has happened is purely because 'Russia bad' and we are supposedly trying to stop it because we are 'good' is just as uselessly reductionist as pretending that WW2 only happened because Hitler.
Going back to your previous post, no, the West didn't actually try to be friends with Russia. The West did their very best to ensure the transition from Soviet Union's planned economy to a market one in post-USSR Russia would be as brutally painful as possible. We also continued to treat post-USSR Russia as a perennial adversary and made any sort of cooperation with them difficult for ages. It's no coincidence that Russia's accession to WTO has been the longest of any other nation ever. We have treated them with suspicion if not outright hostility for decades; the fact that they have now became openly hostile is not some sort of a 'gotcha' that proves that we've been right to do so all along.
On May 20 2024 03:50 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
You don't even make a distinction between coups and revolts. In a sufficiently small and unstable country CIA can absolutely convince a part of the already existing power structure (usually the army) to depose the leader and install a new one.
It's a lot harder to rally enough shit to challenge and bring down the entire existing structure if they are all on the same page.
Syria had elements of high unemployment, drought, corruption, sectarianism, the Kurdish minority, increasing economic inequality and poverty, religious extremism, youths dissatisfied with the system and many other factors and of course the influence of the arab spring happening in the region. And maybe the CIA?
It's definitely not as simple as Syria and Ukraine both having happy populations and then CIA comes along with the NGOs and you get a popular revolt and a civil war. If that was the case why did people revolt against regimes the US wanted to stay in power (Egypt, Yemen for example)?
My view on reality is that it's always complex and anytime you get a simple explanation it's usually pure bullshit.
I completely agree with you that simple explanations are usually bullshit and that reality tends to be quite complex, and this is totally the case in this conflict. In many ways, the current war in Ukraine reminds me of the Korean war. The population at large would really like to just live in peace, but the country is being pulled in two opposite directions by two opposing actors neither of which is particularly concerned about what would be best for the local people. Long-term, Ukraine would surely benefit from becoming a member of the EU, but it was always going to be an incredibly long and difficult road to get there. When you consider the internal conflict and Russia's opposition to such prospects, you really have to wonder, was it really right or worthwhile to push so hard on the shift towards the West, especially since Ukraine really isn't even remotely close to being an acceptable EU member anyway and the new pro-West government has not shown any ability or even willingness to meaningfully combat the key issues that plague the country.
|
United States42691 Posts
|
Well, good thing we have you to enlighten us all with balanced and well-reasoned arguments.
|
United States42691 Posts
It's not reasonable to demand that I individually refute each and every one of your laughably bad claims, especially given that all you do in response is unleash another torrent of shit.
But if you insist, the west did not treat Russia as an adversary. The west invested vast amounts of money in Russia, provided Russia with the technology Russia needed to develop and take part in the wider economy, integrated Russia into the European economy to the tune of $50b/year, and provided Russia with access to western military tech. Russian warships were built with German engines, France was selling modernization packages for Russian tanks up until the most recent invasion of Ukraine etc.
https://www.investigate-europe.eu/en/posts/eu-states-exported-weapons-to-russia
This is simply not how you treat an adversary. The West consistently doubled down on friendship and trade with Russia because the West foolishly believed that they could make a friend from a rival the way they had with Germany. That by showing the huge benefits of cooperation over conflict they could make Russia put the follies of the 19th Century behind it. That there was some amount of German luxury cars that would make Russia no longer interested in killing everyone in Eastern Europe. They invited Russia to work in combined military exercises, they invited Russia to participate in international cooperative organizations, they deeply entwined their economies with Russia's incentivize peace, even as it made themselves vulnerable, they sold Russia weapons, and even as Russia reverted to its previous imperialist form they doubled down harder in the hope that some amount of appeasement would stop Russia from acting like Russia.
Also the west was not behind the collapse of the USSR and was as surprised by it as anyone. It was painful because it was the collapse of an empire. The 90s were caused by Russians. The privatizations did not result in the west seizing the wealth of the USSR, they resulted in Russians seizing the wealth of the USSR. It is as it ever was, the cause of the problems in Russia was the Russians.
Also, while we're at it, the Contras weren't Argentina, they were Nicaragua, a country that according to google is 3,805 miles from Argentina. That's the kind of thing you should be probably know if you're planning on bringing that up as an example of American crimes.
Also, while we're at it, US was an invited ally in the Vietnamese civil war, not the primary party. The ARVN had far more men under arms and took far more casualties. The US was not invading Vietnam, it fought alongside the Vietnamese at the request of the Vietnamese. The goal of the US wasn't to annex Vietnam, it was to defend South Vietnam against a Soviet/PRC backed force as they had in Korea.
The west is not pulling Ukraine, Ukrainians have self determination and a basic understanding of history. They are not being dragged west, they're fleeing west because they, much like the Baltic states, understand exactly what Russia is. This idea that Ukraine is some sort of victim to western sphere of influence politics is buying into the 19th Century imperialist propaganda that Putin is putting out, as if only Russia can save Ukraine from the west and that both sides are equally at fault. The allure of the west is that, unlike Russia, it has no immediate plans to level their cities and rape their women. That's the bar. The west clears that bar, not by actively seducing Ukraine but just by not being a fascist imperialist dictatorship that believes that world domination is its birthright and that the self determination of its neighbours is an affront.
You're one of Putin's useful idiots. You're blindly receptive to USA bad and that's one of the many avenues that his psyops farms use to entice morons into accepting the Russia friendly narrative. There's no factual basis for anything that you're saying but you like the sound of the words in the Youtube videos that shape your opinions and you start to accept the assumptions embedded into them.
That the west is really somehow the aggressor here (and their plan somehow involved building the European economy on Russian imports and arming the Russians).
That the west is somehow the enemy of peace, despite the west tolerating the 2014 invasion of Ukraine in the name of peace and appeasement.
That there are imperial spheres of influence, that the population must naturally belong in one, and that any attempt to leave it must naturally be a hostile act.
Your posts are a modern equivalent of a 1940 American going "well of course Hitler is a warmonger but at the same time we must consider the unfairness of Versailles and the problem of the nationless bankers". It doesn't matter how many times you repeat "I strongly believe Putin needs to kick the bucket and that invading places is bad in general", you're still a useful idiot for his regime, you're still buying into and parroting his core narratives. You need to consume better media instead of just letting anyone who repeats "USA bad" fuck your brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
