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 July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
Lol.
-this is just a measure of your ignorance on the matters here. Why do I even try to talk with you as equal, I cease to understand.
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
Lol.
-this is just a measure of your ignorance on the matters here. Why do I even try to talk with you as equal, I cease to understand.
You constantly allude to that deeper understanding of things that you have and everyone else lacks, imply that everyone elses statements are superficial and naive, but refuse to ever elaborate and explicitly explain either the deeper facts or your deeper analysis which leads you to these conclusions. Probably because it tends to get you mocked for spouting Kremlin propaganda.
On July 30 2024 20:01 Simberto wrote: You constantly allude to that deeper understanding of things that you have and everyone else lacks, imply that everyone elses statements are superficial and naive, but refuse to ever elaborate and explicitly explain either the deeper facts or your deeper analysis which leads you to these conclusions. Probably because it tends to get you mocked for spouting Kremlin propaganda.
The bigger question is why does his posting and formatting style change so drastically from day to day.
On July 28 2024 06:49 KwarK wrote: Once the cycle starts there isn't a good way of stopping it. They may well be fucked.
Russia being fucked is all well and good. However I kind of feel like China and India might have the means as well as the desire to support Russian monetary schemes while getting something lucrative in return, be it ridiculously cheap resources or some technologies. But once they've had enough and call their loans, Russia should truly be screwed.
-I hope you can imagine how pathetic this looks from the other side: a poor man, brainwashed to the core, wishing death to the people he never gets to know.
Why would anyone care what someone whos life revolves around Reddit upvotes and being a shill for the next new shiny cause says or thinks or does for that matter? Let the dogs bark, no one takes them seriously outside their bubble.
Listening to a 40 year old social reject that hasn't had proper exercise in the last decade talk about 'Russians fertilizing the soil', 'a grandma took down a SU-57 with a pickle jar hell yeah!', 'its a 30-1 kill ratio woah! we are winning so hard we need to mobilize 500.000 people to cover our 10k casualties, take that Putin trolls! *pushes glasses up nose*' ;that 100year old sail boat we sunk in the Black Sea 7 months ago was such a win, nothing happened since then, absolutely nothing!'. - Its not even funny, the average joe feels a deep deep pity and sadness for the people these (nafo) dogs are shoving in front of the bullets.
They won't stop 'winning' in their minds until the last Ukrainian is dead. Then again, that's a problem the Ukrainians have, not you.
EDIT: T-t-the Russian economy is really a goner this time guys, I swear!, not like the other 24 times I said the same thing over the last two years. Not like the China is collapsing for real this time articles I've been smoking for the last 17 years. It's totally true this time guys, I heard it from a guy on Youtube
User was temp banned for this post.
Man NATO really did a number on you eh?
In a more general query sense to the general thread denizens, are Ukraine kind of fucked if the White House switches parties?
Add to that, while not necessarily seizing power there are quite a few European countries where parties who aren’t enthusiasts for supporting Ukrainian efforts making gains.
It seems to this relatively uneducated observer that even with current commitments maintained, you’re somewhat at an interminable stalemate. If they’re withdrawn it doesn’t look especially pretty
Thanks in advance
Ukraine is struggling just to maintain the "stalemate". Even with an unforeseen surge in support, there just aren't enough Ukrainians willing to be shipped to the front lines or getting trained well enough when they get pushed there to sustain this.
In the context of losing a couple frontline villages recently, Ukrainian commanders are seeing the writing on the wall.
Oleksandr Shyrshyn, the 47th brigade’s deputy battalion commander, confirmed to local media that the villages had been taken. He blamed poor training of troops, low abilities of officers, motivation and inadequate weapons for the setbacks.
When you consider nearly half the country doesn't see any shame in draft dodging, it's unlikely to be something they can fix any time soon.
In a late June poll conducted by the Kyiv-based Razumkov Center, about 46 percent of respondents said there is no shame in being a draft dodger, while 29 percent held the opposite opinion, and 25 percent found it difficult to answer.
Maybe Ukraine can get some big surge of support somehow that can boost their negotiating position, but otherwise, I'd say their position is pretty much only going to get worse and it'll get less appealing to Russia to settle for part of Ukraine every day it continues.
There is no negotiating position because Russia is not negotiating with them. Everything is being taken from them at gunpoint. Ukraine have nothing to offer Russia and Russia wants nothing Ukraine can give because Russia refuses to acknowledge Ukraine’s right to exist, let alone sit at the table. This is what talks of negotiations fail to understand.
While the West is ready and willing to fight to the last Ukrainian, it's increasingly (and understandably) looking like Ukrainians are not. They don't want Russia's terms, but they aren't able to muster to give themselves another option. So their choice is between trying to negotiate a negative peace now, or continue losing leverage and making it increasingly more appealing for Russia to withdraw its offer to settle for the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions.
There is increasing talk of peace negotiations with Russia in Ukraine. So far, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has always rejected any possible agreements with Russia's current leadership and even issued a decree ruling out talks with President Vladimir Putin. But the situation could be changing. Zelenskyy has even said that Russian representatives should attend the second "peace summit" that Ukraine plans to hold in November.
According to a survey conducted by the Razumkov Center, a Ukrainian think tank, on behalf of the Ukrainian online newspaper Dzerkalo Tyzhnia (zn.ua), 44% of Ukrainians in areas behind the frontline believe that it is time to start official talks between Kyiv and Moscow
This isn’t the west’s war. The west isn’t fighting to the last Ukrainian, the west isn’t involved. We don’t need to speculate what it would look like if the west stopped providing arms, Ukraine would fight on without them, that’s what happened during the shell famine. The choice here isn’t between war and peace, it’s between Ukrainians fighting fascism with guns or with rocks. They’ll fight it either way, their backs are against the wall.
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
Keep shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic my friend.
Awww, quickmeme won't let me deeplink their pictures, but that was supposed to be Baghdad Bob, obviously
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
I wonder why more nations don’t follow that economic strategy. Perhaps the UK could also benefit from losing a million men and converting the economy to the production of hardware that provides no benefit to the people before getting blown up. Perhaps their problem is that their government bonds have buyers. What changes would they need to unlock the strength of 18% interest rates?
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
You can try again, half of my family lives in Russia :D. Things might be going good for you as the state is your employer, so you are safe until the collapse, but the private sector is in megashit.
Maybe a_ch means salaries? They have become much higher in many (most?) areas since 2022. Using official currency rates, even after rubble drop many earn more now in USD/EUR than they did before. At what long term cost though...
An interview with Timothy Snyder, covering topics such as russian fascism (and how russian fascists are in denial), russian colonialism, and more. Quite relevant to our current discussion.
On July 31 2024 01:33 ZeroByte13 wrote: Maybe a_ch means salaries? They have become much higher in many (most?) areas since 2022. Using official currency rates, even after rubble drop many earn more now in USD/EUR than they did before. At what long term cost though...
Maybe, but even so it’s not exactly a good sign when labour suddenly becomes a critical shortage. It’s like if you’re on the Titanic and the stern suddenly rises 200m above the waterline. On the one hand you’re further from the water than ever which is directly the opposite of drowning. On the other, the ship shouldn’t do that.
On July 30 2024 17:47 Simberto wrote: Dude, you drink way too much russian propaganda coolaid.
Instead of your weird "brainwashing through media" idea, isn't the much more reasonable interpretation of events that Finland and Sweden saw Russia invade a neighbour in a blatant war of aggression and thought for themselves: "Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
It is true that the european left is sadly a bit more divided, mainly between the left parties which are financed by Putin and thus want "peace", and those who are not.
-you think I am propagandized, I think the same of you.
>>"Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too" -hope you understand how shallow this explanation is. Although things like that work perfectly in media, because general public hates to think on the matters that don't bother them directly.
You dismissing this explanation as 'shallow' only masks the shallowness of your own explanation. Two theories have been provided as to why states are joining NATO. The question is which better matches the facts on the ground.
You have been provided examples of Finland and Sweden switching their decades long policy of staying out of NATO. The switch occurred after the invasion of Ukraine. You have been given specific of examples of far left wing parties who were (and maybe still are hostile to America), switch to pro-NATO... on the back of the the Ukrainian war. We could add to that. The most generous (per capita) NATO countries are ones that border Russia: Poland and the Baltic states. This adds to the theory that it is fear of Russian aggression that adds to NATO numbers, not American propaganda.
Because which country is dragging their heels to spend 2% GDP... Canada. The one the most under the umbrella of American culture and influence. We inhale the culture of our large neighbour and it's still not enough to shift Canada's spending much beyond a vague promise of getting to 1.7 a decade (and 2-3 election cycles) from now. So if American propaganda is the engine, you would expect that those most under it's influence would be most 'radicalized' against Russia and then then that feeling would become weaker to the edges of American hegemony that has not much time to root.
Instead, we see the opposite. The closer you are to Russia with the least amount of time for American propaganda to take root (and bonus points if you were under the influence of the Soviet Union), the more anti-Russian invasion you are. This supports the fear of Russia theory. And why would that be shallow? Russia has proven time and time again it cannot be trusted to stay within its borders.
Didn't really matter what American propaganda was. Trump could bellow into the air all he wanted about how NATO wasn't pulling their weight. Hardly turned the dial. But when did NATO truly get serious about their 2% contribution? Not American speech. No, it was Russian action. The Russian invasion changed everything, killing conciliatory wing of NATO that until the invasion was rapidly moving towards Russian integration into the European circle. Russian actions killed it.
By contrast. Your 'deep' reasoning. It's American propaganda. But you have failed to explain the mechanism, nor proven that it was effectual, nor have you demonstrated that it even took root. (Guess who was anti-invasion of Iraq... a good part of Europe, inclusive of France. And in the wake of the invasion, Europe became fairly anti-American. How were they not controlled by American propaganda back then, but now they are. What changed?) Nor have your demonstrated that propaganda is a better causal explanation for the timing of the opinion switch which corresponds precisely after Russia's invasion. You've given nothing. Nothing, except given a very, very shallow claim. Oh, a smug sense of superiority. You've given a lot of that. Congrats, I guess.
Without a Russia posturing, or indeed actively behaving in certain ways for decades, NATO likely wouldn’t even exist in its current form.
It becomes very hard to justify the expense and indeed the principle behind a vestigal Cold War institution if the former adversary is a peaceful and earnest international partner.
Russia had ample time and opportunity to do that and chose the diametrically opposite path, it’s borderline lunacy to blame anyone else for this current state of affairs.
On July 30 2024 20:01 Simberto wrote: You constantly allude to that deeper understanding of things that you have and everyone else lacks, imply that everyone elses statements are superficial and naive, but refuse to ever elaborate and explicitly explain either the deeper facts or your deeper analysis which leads you to these conclusions. Probably because it tends to get you mocked for spouting Kremlin propaganda.
>>How is it shallow? Russia has a proven tendency to attack its neighbours. They have been doing this shit basically nonstop throughout the 2000s. The Fins also have beein invaded by Russia just in the last century.
-look at the statistics on the number of war Russia initiated, and the number of wars initiated against it. Georgia war has been initiated by the georgian side, which has been confirmed by many sources, including the UN investigation report on the matter.
>>Which is why a lot of Russian neighbours and historical targets of Russian imperialism have joined NATO. The baltics, Poland, now Russia and Sweden. This is not some expansionist agenda. It is countries being threatened by Russia joining the big club of people protecting each other from Russia after one of the countries being threatened by Russia was invaded by Russia.
I've already wrote about the mechanism. There are a number of small countries\territories on Russia's border, that cannot by themselves sustain a decent level of well-being and economical development, as it is generally a difficult thing to do. Therefore sometimes there appear leaders, who's willing to gamble by turning hostile, of course for a significant payment from politicians\countries engaged in the containment policy. There has been a number of straight up attacks, like the Chechens invasion of Dagestan in 2000 (after several years of Hasavyurt peace agreement, which provided them a very high degree of autonomy, including own police, judicial system, and so on), or Saakashvili's attempt to occupy Abkhasia in 2008. There are many more possibilities of waging hybrid war, including hackings, social media influence with promotion of terrorism\extremism, and so on.
On July 30 2024 16:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
In Norway we've had two political parties (socialist/communist) that have historically been opposed to Norwegian nato membership, because these two parties have considered American influence on the world a negative and they have wanted no part in American imperialist wars of aggression. One of these two parties was created as an offshoot of our labor party specifically because of disagreement over NATO.
Both these parties changed their opinion on NATO after 2022, and even support giving military aid to Ukraine. (To be fair, the most left-wing of the two has a faction who disagrees with the party leadership.)
What I am saying is that the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US, overwhelmingly oppose Russia's invasion of Ukraine, to the point where they've made a complete 180 on NATO, because Russia, now, is clearly considered the greater imperialist force. These people did not feel this way before 2014/22.
>>Did Finland and Sweden suddenly become client states in 2022? The idea that they joined for any other reason than Russia's invasion is complete nonsense.
-of course not; since somewhere around 1990. The mechanism of US influence is in a large part due to the media - and of course the coverage of the conflict in english-speaking media has been orwellian at its best, especially in 2022. In the case of Finland I'm sure that a direct influence on the leading politicians has been in place as weel, since they are currently trying to champion the anti-Russian politics (discussion about stationing NATO nuclear weapons on Finnish territory, "Finns should prepare for a war coming to its borders" by Stubb, and so on)
>>the european left - which has had absolutely no love for the US -This is too much of a generalization; lots of 'moderate left' parties are pro-NATO ones.
Russia just proved everyone right to be afraid, to join NATO, to prepare for war, to help Ukraine with all we got.
Russia proved everyone wrong to not react to Crimea annexation and to trust Russia for being a stable partner for trade.
Watching the collapse of Russia, is like watching a history documentary. The time scale is different, and you can see that the Russian are the Frog getting boiled alive.
Collapses of these scale take years, not two, not five. Hell. you can even see North Korea, you are not collapsing because it is virtually impossible to go lower. Russians seems to always be ready to accept things will be shittier in the future, as long as they only get 5% shittier, because that's life. "You see, we tried getting things better, but the uncertainty was too much and it felt foreign and strange."
30 years, Russia managed to have a growth like no other, renovating their major cities, getting things to work... Things won't fall to shit in a years or two, but you will start notice decay when you child grows up. Or that you will feel like "who needs a child in this economy".
-change Russia with France in the part about the economical situation, and you'll get a far more convincing part of a text. The economy in Russia has never been as good as it is today.
You can try again, half of my family lives in Russia :D. Things might be going good for you as the state is your employer, so you are safe until the collapse, but the private sector is in megashit.
-economic improvement are non-uniform, there are people who get better off and vice versa, so the anecdotal evidence can be very biased. As I wrote recently, the overall GDP growth in the previous year was ~3%, this year it is expected to be 4-5%, with a large share of it due to increases in industrial output. A quite detailed statistics can be seen here for example: (in Russian).
>>the private sector is in megashit -imagine the possibilities in the private sector when the real incomes has increased by 20-30% during the recent years.
Let me guess, the invasion of Ukraine wasn't started by russia? Also, Georgia started the war by trying to stop russian-supported proxies from breaking away, but at the same time Chechnya started the war with russia by trying to break away, right? ;-)
On July 30 2024 17:47 Simberto wrote: Dude, you drink way too much russian propaganda coolaid.
Instead of your weird "brainwashing through media" idea, isn't the much more reasonable interpretation of events that Finland and Sweden saw Russia invade a neighbour in a blatant war of aggression and thought for themselves: "Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too"
It is true that the european left is sadly a bit more divided, mainly between the left parties which are financed by Putin and thus want "peace", and those who are not.
-you think I am propagandized, I think the same of you.
>>"Hey, we are also neighbours of Russia (or in the case of Sweden, really close to Russia)...maybe we should prepare so the same doesn't happen to us, too" -hope you understand how shallow this explanation is. Although things like that work perfectly in media, because general public hates to think on the matters that don't bother them directly.
You dismissing this explanation as 'shallow' only masks the shallowness of your own explanation. Two theories have been provided as to why states are joining NATO. The question is which better matches the facts on the ground.
You have been provided examples of Finland and Sweden switching their decades long policy of staying out of NATO. The switch occurred after the invasion of Ukraine. You have been given specific of examples of far left wing parties who were (and maybe still are hostile to America), switch to pro-NATO... on the back of the the Ukrainian war. We could add to that. The most generous (per capita) NATO countries are ones that border Russia: Poland and the Baltic states. This adds to the theory that it is fear of Russian aggression that adds to NATO numbers, not American propaganda.
Because which country is dragging their heels to spend 2% GDP... Canada. The one the most under the umbrella of American culture and influence. We inhale the culture of our large neighbour and it's still not enough to shift Canada's spending much beyond a vague promise of getting to 1.7 a decade (and 2-3 election cycles) from now. So if American propaganda is the engine, you would expect that those most under it's influence would be most 'radicalized' against Russia and then then that feeling would become weaker to the edges of American hegemony that has not much time to root.
Instead, we see the opposite. The closer you are to Russia with the least amount of time for American propaganda to take root (and bonus points if you were under the influence of the Soviet Union), the more anti-Russian invasion you are. This supports the fear of Russia theory. And why would that be shallow? Russia has proven time and time again it cannot be trusted to stay within its borders.
Didn't really matter what American propaganda was. Trump could bellow into the air all he wanted about how NATO wasn't pulling their weight. Hardly turned the dial. But when did NATO truly get serious about their 2% contribution? Not American speech. No, it was Russian action. The Russian invasion changed everything, killing conciliatory wing of NATO that until the invasion was rapidly moving towards Russian integration into the European circle. Russian actions killed it.
By contrast. Your 'deep' reasoning. It's American propaganda. But you have failed to explain the mechanism, nor proven that it was effectual, nor have you demonstrated that it even took root. (Guess who was anti-invasion of Iraq... a good part of Europe, inclusive of France. And in the wake of the invasion, Europe became fairly anti-American. How were they not controlled by American propaganda back then, but now they are. What changed?) Nor have your demonstrated that propaganda is a better causal explanation for the timing of the opinion switch which corresponds precisely after Russia's invasion. You've given nothing. Nothing, except given a very, very shallow claim. Oh, a smug sense of superiority. You've given a lot of that. Congrats, I guess.
-first, thank you for a detailed view.
>>So if American propaganda is the engine, you would expect that those most under it's influence would be most 'radicalized' against Russia and then then that feeling would become weaker to the edges of American hegemony that has not much time to root. -there are many different levels of propaganda. Most of our bordering states have a wast network of NGOs, which promote especially toxic sort of it, in social media and local news. You may remember the recent news of the anit-NGO law in Georgia, and the fuss around it.
>>Didn't really matter what American propaganda was. Trump could bellow into the air all he wanted about how NATO wasn't pulling their weight. Hardly turned the dial. But when did NATO truly get serious about their 2% contribution? Not American speech. No, it was Russian action. The Russian invasion changed everything, killing conciliatory wing of NATO that until the invasion was rapidly moving towards Russian integration into the European circle. Russian actions killed it. >>Nor have your demonstrated that propaganda is a better causal explanation for the timing of the opinion switch which corresponds precisely after Russia's invasion
- The start of the war has been a shock for many people (me included). The key here is - such people were generally not very involved in politic matters, and thus are prone to media manipulations. To see the effect of it, you may compare the recation to the war start in the 'western influence' countries, and in the rest of the world. The latter had been moderately negative at first, and neutral or pro-Russian currently - exactly because of the lack of pro-western propaganda in the main media sources, which results in gradual understanding of the conflict reasons and timeline. On the contrast, even here there are a lot of people, who continue to insist on the "unprovoked war of aggression" etc., which is a kindergarden level dumb shit.
>>But you have failed to explain the mechanism, nor proven that it was effectual, nor have you demonstrated that it even took root. (Guess who was anti-invasion of Iraq... a good part of Europe, inclusive of France. And in the wake of the invasion, Europe became fairly anti-American. How were they not controlled by American propaganda back then, but now they are. What changed?) Nor have your demonstrated that propaganda is a better causal explanation for the timing of the opinion switch which corresponds precisely after Russia's invasion. You've given nothing. Nothing, except given a very, very shallow claim. Oh, a smug sense of superiority. You've given a lot of that. Congrats, I guess.[/QUOTE]
-there is a gradual degradation of Europe's policymaking. In 2008 Merkel and Sarkozy have been strongly against NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, saying that this would provoke a war. A more recent Merkel said (which is likely more 'has been forced to say') that Minsk agreements were fake, and Sholtz is unable to investigate Nord Stream bombings, which has already cost Germany hundreds of billions of EUR. At an early point in 2022, seeing the successes of the Ukrainian army, many politicians decided that Ukraine can win - and put a bet on it. Now they are unable to stop, as this will not give them big benefits, by will strongly worsen the relations with the US.
On July 31 2024 16:55 WombaT wrote: Man if you could get me in touch with whoever brainwashed you that would be much appreciated, my kid will never refuse to eat his vegetables again!
-all you need - is to create a local version of reality, where all of his peers adore veggies. Thats basically the same what has been done to you
EPT
