Geopolitics

[Carolina Red]

Scotland

Man, I can’t wait to see your take on the UK’s roles in Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. then.

 

[Attila]

Man, I can’t wait to see your take on the UK’s roles in Serbia, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. then.

I think it was shitty. I’m disgusted by the decisions my government made

you?

 

[Carolina Red]

I think it was shitty. I’m disgusted by the decisions my government made

you?

Me? I’m really interested in you bringing up Serbia multiple times.

 

[Attila]

Me? I’m really interested in you bringing up Serbia multiple times.

Yeah I’m not surprised you can’t give a straight answer

 

[Carolina Red]

Yeah I’m not surprised you can’t give a straight answer

I’m in support of the NATO mission to stop Slobodan Milosevic. I’m interested as to why you keep bringing it up as a negative action.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

That's an impressively unhinged take on this war.

Overstates the role of nazis, perhaps, but all of that is factually correct. What's unhinged about it?

https://peoplesparty.org/nato-ukraine/

Both corporate parties are controlled by the Military Industrial Complex which is invested in Death.
There can be no victory unless there is peace.

Lets hope no more mothers weep for children they bring into this world with so much pain and hope.

That's correct.

Overall, NATO is not a defensive alliance when it bombs countries on an offensive footing and has a history of such. I've stopped posting here and completely stopped reading the other thread, which was like an alternate reality thread the last time I looked, but consensus is, every day, moving closer to the majority of what was stated here throughout (proxy war, provocation, etc.).

 

[Lemoor]

Overstates the role of nazis, perhaps, but all of that is factually correct. What's unhinged about it?

1. US didn't stage a coup in Ukraine in 2014.
2. Yanukovych wasn't replaced by a puppet state.
3. That's a disgustingly manipulative way of describing war in Donbas that extremely conveniently ommits all of the Russian involvement.
4. Current government isn't run by Nazis.
5. Yanukovych embezzled tens of billions of dollars. Wonder why they only mentioned the fact that he's democratically elected and he supported Russia, but with current government being corrupt is the most notable feature despite being orders of magnitude less corrupt than Yanukovych.
6. No, they weren't caught with bioweapon labs in Ukraine. This also gets contested here?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

1. US didn't stage a coup in Ukraine in 2014.

They backed the Maidan Coup. Everyone knows this.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-conversation-162208835907

2. Yanukovych wasn't replaced by a puppet state.

Depends on your perspective. Was replaced by American and European members of government who went along a neoliberal shock therapy line, typical of US coups like Chile.

3. That's a disgustingly manipulative way of describing war in Donbas that extremely conveniently ommits all of the Russian involvement.

Sort of agree on this point.

4. Current government isn't run by Nazis.

No, but there is obviously a sizeable neo-Nazi minority, currently in tunnels underneath the Avovstal steel works. The Far Right Sector and Azov and other groups have been topic of western expose for years prior to breakout of war and then became topics of rehabilitation.

5. Yanukovych embezzled tens of billions of dollars. Wonder why they only mentioned the fact that he's democratically elected and he supported Russia, but with current government being corrupt is the most notable feature despite being orders of magnitude less corrupt than Yanukovych.

Every Ukrainian president since 91 has been corrupt. Yanukovych was corrupt, too, agreed (so is Zelensky and so were all those who went before him).

6. No, they weren't caught with bioweapon labs in Ukraine. This also gets contested here?

I ignored that part because conspiracy theorists get sidetracked by it, but the US was absolutely operating "biolabs" in Ukraine. Whether they're benign or not, I don't know and don't really care.

So, all in all, basically every claim (except the Nazi one) has substance to it.

 

[Red Dreams]

That's correct.

Overall, NATO is not a defensive alliance when it bombs countries on an offensive footing and has a history of such. I've stopped posting here and completely stopped reading the other thread, which was like an alternate reality thread the last time I looked, but consensus is, every day, moving closer to the majority of what was stated here throughout (proxy war, provocation, etc.).

I am relieved that there are staff here who can actually read.

 

[MTF]

So, all in all, basically every claim (except the Nazi one) has substance to it.

That's 0 out of 6. It's not a coup when a government falls because it tries to act against the will of the population re: regional alignment, it's just democracy.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

That's 0 out of 6. It's not a coup when a government falls because it tries to act against the will of the population re: regional alignment, it's just democracy.

It was a literal coup, though. The government was ousted via coup. Also, the split at the time was roughly 54-46 in terms of EU/EEA. Plus the American involvement. Whether you consider it an American coup or a Ukrainian coup, it was a coup (an American one imo, as per Nuland's audio).

Coup is accurate, though not without Ukrainian willingness. What came after was as much a puppet state as what went before. 3 is contentious. 4 is misstated, but wrong. 5 applies to all Ukrainian presidents. 6 is misinterpreted but again Nuland states that they were funding such in Ukraine (not "weapons", though).

I'd say 3/6 depending on your point of view.

 

[Red Dreams]

While many Ukrainians suffered because of this war, I note there is no mention of the rampant racism of the Ukrainian authorities towards non white students who were trying to flee the country because of the war.
All sanitized to push a narrative.

Edit:

NATO itself was formed because the MIC needed to keep selling weapons after WWII.
The Russians were never our enemy.

 

[Lemoor]

They backed the Maidan Coup. Everyone knows this.
https://www.nbcnews.com/video/audio-of-leaked-nuland-conversation-162208835907
Depends on your perspective. Was replaced by American and European members of government who went along a neoliberal shock therapy line, typical of US coups like Chile.
Sort of agree on this point.
No, but there is obviously a sizeable neo-Nazi minority, currently in tunnels underneath the Avovstal steel works. The Far Right Sector and Azov and other groups have been topic of western expose for years prior to breakout of war and then became topics of rehabilitation.
Every Ukrainian president since 91 has been corrupt. Yanukovych was corrupt, too, agreed (so is Zelensky and so were all those who went before him).
I ignored that part because conspiracy theorists get sidetracked by it, but the US was absolutely operating "biolabs" in Ukraine. Whether they're benign or not, I don't know and don't really care.
So, all in all, basically every claim (except the Nazi one) has substance to it.

Ad 1, Ah, the classic jump from staging to backing, surely no-one will notice. Does Russia backing politicians and organizations in nearly every single European country mean that they are staging multiple coups at the same time in dozens of countries and should be reacted to accordingly?
Ad 2, What? Who were the Americans and European members of government that replaced Yanukovych and what exact similarities to Chile happened according to you? edit: Also, I have no idea how do you measure "puppetness" of a country, but Ukraine was much closer to a Russia puppet state under Yanukovych than it's West's puppet state under Poroshenko or Zelensky. It's not even close.
Ad 4, Being in the tunnel of Azovstal is not running the government even in part.
Ad 5, This is a meaningless truism. Every politician everywhere has been corrupt to a certain extent if you stretch the definition well enough. If anyone genuinely cares about corruption in Ukraine, ousting Yanukovich should be a massive reason to celebrate. He was basically in a league of his own there.
Ad 6, You asked about whether they are factual, not whether you care about them being factual. I can't really help you if biolabs and bioweapon labs are the same to you and you just don't care about the difference.

 

[nimic]

Does anyone except the Russians actually call it the Maidan Coup? Revolution is enough, it doesn't exactly automatically make it a good thing (even though this obviously was). Nor does it preclude the Americans supporting it.

 

[Lemoor]

Does anyone except the Russians actually call it the Maidan Coup? Revolution is enough, it doesn't exactly automatically make it a good thing (even though this obviously was). Nor does it preclude the Americans supporting it.

People that support it call it a revolution or protests, people that don't call it a coup. Obviously whatever you call it has no bearing on what actually happened there and shouldn't be used for making any value judgements about it.

 

[2cents]

I note there is no mention of the rampant racism of the Ukrainian authorities towards non white students who were trying to flee the country because of the war.

This has been discussed in depth on this forum.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Ad 1, Ah, the classic jump from staging to backing, surely no-one will notice. Does Russia backing politicians and organizations in nearly every single European country mean that they are staging multiple coups at the same time in dozens of countries and should be reacted to accordingly?

Nuland announced the composition of the cabinet prior to the ousting of the government. Call it backing, support, or whatever, it's clear that there was American involvement, made even more clear by American state figures rushing to get to Kyiv during the coup. If it happened the other way around, with Lavrov on the leaked audio, we'd be calling it a Russian coup and everyone knows that.

Does anyone except the Russians actually call it the Maidan Coup? Revolution is enough, it doesn't exactly automatically make it a good thing (even though this obviously was). Nor does it preclude the Americans supporting it.

Ukrainians themselves don't seem united in thinking it was a good thing. Some do, some don't. Probably much more popular now than it was at the time.

Ad 2, What? Who were the Americans and European members of government that replaced Yanukovych and what exact similarities to Chile happened according to you? edit: Also, I have no idea how do you measure "puppetness" of a country, but Ukraine was much closer to a Russia puppet state under Yanukovych than it's West's puppet state under Poroshenko or Zelensky. It's not even close.

Traded a Russian puppet for an American puppet. That was the reading of those in the Donbas/Crimea. It's close depending on your bias. But take a look at various economic ministers appointed between 2014-2019, you'll find some Americans, some Eastern Europeans, and a Canadian iirc. World Bank/IMF orthodoxy with Chile as the model.

Ad 4, Being in the tunnel of Azovstal is not running the government even in part.

Never said they ran the government, but that there is/was a clear fascist minority at play.

Ad 6, You asked about whether they are factual, not whether you care about them being factual. I can't really help you if biolabs and bioweapon labs are the same to you and you just don't care about the difference.

Ignore "biolabs", "bioweaponlabs", because it seems pointless but there is substance to biolabs, whatever that means, verified by Nuland's testimony to Rubio.

This has been discussed in depth on this forum.

Yeah, most of this, including points above, has been done to death, which is why I know which parts merit credence and which ones don't.

tl;dr the original points in the article all have some substance to it, but the source is (intentionally, I'd guess) framing it in the most provocative way: it's Chinese state media, so to be expected.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

In other news, Kissinger gives his thoughts on longterm implications:

Henry Kissinger: At the time we opened to China, Russia was the principal enemy — but our relations with China were about as bad as they could be. Our view in opening to China was that it was unwise, when you have two enemies, to treat them exactly alike. What produced the opening were tensions that developed autonomously between Russia and China. [Former Soviet Union head of state Leonid] Brezhnev could not conceive that China and the United States could get together. But Mao, despite all his ideological hostility, was ready to begin conversations. In principle, the [Sino-Russian] alliance is against vested interests, it’s now established. But it does not look to me as if it is an intrinsically permanent relationship.

FT: I take it that it would be in America’s geopolitical interest to encourage more distance between Russia and China. Is this wrong?

HK: The geopolitical situation globally will undergo significant changes after the Ukraine war is over. And it is not natural for China and Russia to have identical interests on all foreseeable problems. I don’t think we can generate possible disagreements but I think circumstances will. After the Ukraine war, Russia will have to reassess its relationship to Europe at a minimum and its general attitude towards Nato. I think it is unwise to take an adversarial position to two adversaries in a way that drives them together, and once we take aboard this principle in our relationships with Europe and in our internal discussions, I think history will provide opportunities in which we can apply the differential approach. That doesn’t mean that either of them will become intimate friends of the west, it only means that on specific issues as they arise we leave open the option of having a different approach. In the period ahead of us, we should not lump Russia and China together as an integral element.

FT: The Biden administration is framing its grand geopolitical challenge as being democracy versus autocracy. I’m picking up an implicit hint that it's the wrong framing?

HK: We have to be conscious of the differences of ideology and of interpretation that exists. We should use this consciousness to apply it in our own analysis of the importance of issues as they arise, rather than make it the principal issue of confrontation, unless we are prepared to make regime change the principal goal of our policy. I think given the evolution of technology, and the enormous destructiveness of weapons that now exist, [seeking regime change] may be imposed on us by the hostility of others, but we should avoid generating it with our own attitudes.

FT: You have probably more experience than any person alive of how to manage a stand-off between two nuclear-armed superpowers. But today’s nuclear language, which is coming thick and fast from [Russian president Vladimir] Putin, from people around him, where do you put that in terms of the threat we are facing today?

HK: We are now [faced with] with technologies where the rapidity of exchange, the subtlety of the inventions, can produce levels of catastrophe that were not even imaginable. And the strange aspect of the present situation is that the weapons are multiplying on both sides and their sophistication is increasing every year. But there’s almost no discussion internationally about what would happen if the weapons actually became used. My appeal in general, on whatever side you are, is to understand that we are now living in a totally new era, and we have gotten away with neglecting that aspect. But as technology spreads around the world, as it does inherently, diplomacy and war will need a different content and that will be a challenge.

FT: You’ve met Putin 20 to 25 times. The Russian military nuclear doctrine is they will respond with nuclear weapons if they feel that the regime is under existential threat. Where do you think Putin’s red line is in this situation?

HK: I have met Putin as a student of international affairs about once a year for a period of maybe 15 years for purely academic strategic discussions. I thought his basic convictions were a kind of mystic faith in Russian history . . . and that he felt offended, in that sense, not by anything we did particularly at first, but by this huge gap that opened up with Europe and the east. He was offended and threatened because Russia was threatened by the absorption of this whole area into Nato. This does not excuse and I would not have predicted an attack of the magnitude of taking over a recognised country. I think he miscalculated the situation he faced internationally and he obviously miscalculated Russia’s capabilities to sustain such a major enterprise — and when the time for settlement comes all need to take that into consideration, that we are not going back to the previous relationship but to a position for Russia that will be different because of this — and not because we demand it but because they produced it.

FT: Do you think Putin’s getting good information and if he isn’t what further miscalculations should we be preparing for?

HK: In all these crises, one has to try to understand what the inner red line is for the opposite number . . . The obvious question is how long will this escalation continue and how much scope is there for further escalation? Or has he reached the limit of his capability, and he has to decide at what point escalating the war will strain his society to a point that will limit its fitness to conduct international policy as a great power in the future.

https://www.ft.com/content/cd88912d-506a-41d4-b38f-0c37cb7f0e2f

 

[Red Dreams]

This has been discussed in depth on this forum.

I asked a staff if it would be ok to post links and did not get a reply. Why I mentioned it.

 

[Lemoor]

Nuland announced the composition of the cabinet prior to the ousting of the government. Call it backing, support, or whatever, it's clear that there was American involvement, made even more clear by American state figures rushing to get to Kyiv during the coup. If it happened the other way around, with Lavrov on the leaked audio, we'd be calling it a Russian coup and everyone knows that.

None of those terms is staging and I was contesting the "staging" part of staging coup. Already mentioned above that I don't think it should matter for any value judgements whether you call it a coup or a revolution outside of propaganda purposes. Foreign support is obvious and Ukrainians would be idiotic to avoid getting it then, the possibility of Russian army suppressing the protests was a very real scenario then.

Traded a Russian puppet for an American puppet. That was the reading of those in the Donbas/Crimea. It's close depending on your bias. But take a look at various economic ministers appointed between 2014-2019, you'll find some Americans, some Eastern Europeans, and a Canadian iirc. World Bank/IMF orthodoxy with Chile as the model.

Maidan protests literally happened because of Putin forcing Yanukovych to go back on a promised and agreed trade deal with EU. Unless you can actually provide something specific and similar in scope that would suggest American puppetry, any symmetry suggestions are just ridiculous.
Also, why are we pretending that we still live in 2014? A lot of things happened and have been unearthed since then and the readings of Ukrainians have massively changed for legitimate reasons. And why democratic elections don't matter in elections when pro-western politicians are elected?

Never said they ran the government, but that there is/was a clear fascist minority at play.

Post you called "factual" did and you contested my contesting of that. I don't mind expanding the discussion, but using this to avoid addressing original points is nasty.

Ignore "biolabs", "bioweaponlabs", because it seems pointless but there is substance to biolabs, whatever that means, verified by Nuland's testimony to Rubio.

Then stop suggesting bioweapon labs? "There is substance to biolabs" doesn't confirm anything specific, malicious or even that interesting and it's obvious why people justifying Russia always gravitate to the completely made up bioweapons.

Yeah, most of this, including points above, has been done to death, which is why I know which parts merit credence and which ones don't.

If you know that most things I say lack credence why are you being as abstract as possible and swapping terms constantly?

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

None of those terms is staging and I was contesting the "staging" part of staging coup. Already mentioned above that I don't think it should matter for any value judgements whether you call it a coup or a revolution outside of propaganda purposes. Foreign support is obvious and Ukrainians would be idiotic to avoid getting it then, the possibility of Russian army suppressing the protests was a very real scenario then.

Yes, the Americans supported the coup. We agree on that. Most would not bicker with "staging" given the context, but I'll run with "support".

Maidan protests literally happened because of Putin forcing Yanukovych to go back on a promised and agreed trade deal with EU. Unless you can actually provide something specific and similar in scope that would suggest American puppetry, any symmetry suggestions are just ridiculous.

Like the de factoization of Ukraine as NATO state post-Maidan? Shelling of the Donbas. Yeah, that's an American puppet state inasmuch as it was ever a Russian puppet state. Standard in a proxy state, though, with US/Russia each wanting to control it. The far right were also mobilizied in the ousting of that government, supported by the US. Good scholarship on that from Ivan Katchanovski who has opened his work up to free access. Covers the entire Maidan conflict.

As of right now, for instance, the US/NATO have war aims that exceed those of the Ukrainian government and such are being implemented because... Ukraine is a puppet/client/vassal state.

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

You can read a lot on the topic if you want. Lievan is well regarded, though.

Then stop suggesting bioweapon labs? "There is substance to biolabs" doesn't confirm anything specific, malicious or even that interesting and it's obvious why people justifying Russia always gravitate to the completely made up bioweapons.

Clarifying, not suggesting. The "bioweapon" claim emerges from the verified existence of "biolabs" which comes from both American and Russian record.

If you know that most things I say lack credence why are you being as abstract as possible and swapping terms constantly?

You called a set of disputed facts "unhinged" when the majority of them are either a matter of perspective or in fact proven. The Nazis in government and bioweapons aspect remain the only two you can disregard entirely, though it is true that the US supported neo-Nazi elements over and beyond the Ukrainian government (as reported over the years prior to the war).


The above is from 2019, but Cohen, and others, documented the fact that the US preferred to support the minority extremist element in Ukraine over and above the government. This is why Zelensky arrived on the contact line when elected, on a peace platform, and, after asking those right wing groups to stop the shelling was told to get back to Kyiv with a threat to his life made very clear.

It's not black and white. You dismiss much of it far too easily. You can dispute this or that part, but the claims are not without substance.

Definitely the last post I'm making in this thread If you don't agree, you don't agree. The record is there, everyone can judge it for themselves.

 

[Raoul]

This has been discussed in depth on this forum.

It would require him actually having read the thread.

 

[VorZakone]

It seems there's plenty of folks who genuinely dislike the West and it's clouding their judgment. What Western countries did in the past does not excuse what the Russians are doing now.

And that goes both ways. Western nations themselves regularly get criticized too and often for valid reasons.

But I'll conclude by saying: give me the West all day long. I'm glad to live in the West instead of Putin's Russia and the CCP's everly increasing dystopian China with massive state surveillance.

 

[Lemoor]

Yes, the Americans supported the coup. We agree on that. Most would not bicker with "staging" given the context, but I'll run with "support".

Russia "supports" politicians and political organisations in nearly every single country in Europe, it doesn't mean that they stage anything when they get into power or accomplish something. Obviously the implication of a primary actor is completely different here, but sure, let's pretend that you didn't press for it deliberately. Also you do know that you could support everything you say if you just listed those disgusting ways by which US supported the coup, but for some reason you just leave it at that and never want to go into specifics of why this coup was so bad and externally driven.

Like the de factoization of Ukraine as NATO state post-Maidan? Shelling of the Donbas. Yeah, that's an American puppet state inasmuch as it was ever a Russian puppet state. Standard in a proxy state, though, with US/Russia each wanting to control it. The far right were also mobilizied in the ousting of that government, supported by the US. Good scholarship on that from Ivan Katchanovski who has opened his work up to free access. Covers the entire Maidan conflict.

De facto NATO member that doesn't get the article 5 - the main point of being in NATO, sure. Did they ever mention broken ceasefires by separatists to inch into Donbas or Russian soldiers without insignia constantly ending up in Ukraine getting lost while accidentaly taking territory and the state of the regular Ukrainian army at that point? Oh and the fact that those far-right movements in government lasted for months and were voted out? Or did you just conveniently ignore those?

As of right now, for instance, the US/NATO have war aims that exceed those of the Ukrainian government and such are being implemented because... Ukraine is a puppet/client/vassal state.

What the feck. Whether or not somebody is some sort of puppet is obviously dependant on whether they can implement their own goals when they are divergent from a bigger nation. Not on whether west disgustingly dares to have an opinion on what they would personally like to happen.

Clarifying, not suggesting. The "bioweapon" claim emerges from the verified existence of "biolabs" which comes from both American and Russian record.

So massively exaggerating legitimate claims to the point where they say something completely different that would be unrecognisable from the substance alone is now called clarifying? I was trying to quote what you were saying precisely, but obviously this is way too much hassle when stuff like this is considered fine.
Also, unrelated to other points, but I forgot to ask - are you fine saying that those biolabs had any bearing on the decision to invade Ukraine or are you shyly fine with the original post implying this?

You called a set of disputed facts "unhinged" when the majority of them are either a matter of perspective or in fact proven.

That's why you have to massively shift the goalposts with every single one.

The above is from 2019, but Cohen, and others, documented the fact that the US preferred to support the minority extremist element in Ukraine over and above the government.

Again, did he mention that multiple elections happened since then and they were voted out or did you conveniently leave it out?

It's not black and white. You dismiss much of it far too easily. You can dispute this or that part, but the claims are not without substance.

Which is why every single claim requires hyperbole that is not supported by this substance or ignoring massive amounts of relevant context or otherwise it completely falls apart. Sure, that is how all legitimate claims work.

 

[Raoul]

It seems there's plenty of folks who genuinely dislike the West and it's clouding their judgment. What Western countries did in the past does not excuse what the Russians are doing now.

And that goes both ways. Western nations themselves regularly get criticized too and often for valid reasons.

But I'll conclude by saying: give me the West all day long. I'm glad to live in the West instead of Putin's Russia and the CCP's everly increasing dystopian China with massive state surveillance.

One would think this was blatantly obvious, but as we've seen in this thread, there are still some that disagree.

 

[Lemoor]

It would require him actually having read the thread.

To be honest, I kind of wish I didn't read this thread now. Not great for blood pressure.

 

[Raoul]

To be honest, I kind of wish I didn't read this thread now. Not great for blood pressure.

That's precisely why it was created - as a self-reinforcing alternate reality bubble that spares the main thread from getting derailed by the "what about the West" crew.

 

[MTF]

To be honest, I kind of wish I didn't read this thread now. Not great for blood pressure.

Your efforts are valiant, but if you get tired I don't think anyone would blame you.

 

[Moby]

But I'll conclude by saying: give me the West all day long. I'm glad to live in the West instead of Putin's Russia and the CCP's everly increasing dystopian China with massive state surveillance.

Funnily enough Russians, North Koreans, extremist Hindu nationalists in India all hold the same sentiment about their own regimes and think the other sides are deluded. Everyone gets told by their regimes about how they are perfect.

 

[Red Dreams]

It would require him actually having read the thread.

I left the thread because it was nauseatingly pro US/NATO
Also why I posted the Chinese report link as a "Up Yours"

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

That's precisely why it was created - as a self-reinforcing alternate reality bubble that spares the main thread from getting derailed by the "what about the West" crew.

Which, ironically, is what the main thread became. Both are worth avoiding at this point.

 

[massi83]

Definitely the last post I'm making in this thread

Which, ironically, is what the main thread became. Both are worth avoiding at this point.

Congrats to all who had under 3h!

 

[nimic]

That's precisely why it was created - as a self-reinforcing alternate reality bubble that spares the main thread from getting derailed by the "what about the West" crew.

To be fair, you have the second most posts in this self-reinforcing alternate reality bubble.

But also to be fair, you have a third of the #1 poster's posts.

 

[Mogget]

Funnily enough Russians, North Koreans, extremist Hindu nationalists in India all hold the same sentiment about their own regimes and think the other sides are deluded. Everyone gets told by their regimes about how they are perfect.

He's got a point though. I'm an ethnic minority living in the UK and I'd rather be a minority here than in any of those places.

Atlhough I've definitely noticed more European exceptionalism since this war started, and the "we're better because we have democracy" sentiment is definitely annoying .

 

[Zehner]

Funnily enough Russians, North Koreans, extremist Hindu nationalists in India all hold the same sentiment about their own regimes and think the other sides are deluded. Everyone gets told by their regimes about how they are perfect.

Yeah, it's totally irrational to suggest democracies are better systems of government than autocracies. I probably just oversee all the censorship, deportation, suppression, persecution etc. just in front of me.

I also respect your bravery. Posting such criticism in the Western world usually leads to imprisonment. I hope you used a VPN because if not we probably won't hear from you for a very long time. Stay strong.

 

[Raoul]

To be fair, you have the second most posts in this self-reinforcing alternate reality bubble.

But also to be fair, you have a third of the #1 poster's posts.

That's because the topics posted here are of interest outside of day to day posts in the Russia/Ukraine thread.

 

[VidaRed]

I've stopped posting here and completely stopped reading the other thread, which was like an alternate reality thread the last time I looked, but consensus is, every day, moving closer to the majority of what was stated here throughout (proxy war, provocation, etc.).

I haven't visited the other thread after the first time i opened it which was a couple of months ago. You cannot undo years and years of one sided information in a jiffy. I've been on the internet since i was a kid in the early to mid 90's and the conventional wisdom was that with the internet people won't be easily fooled and brainwashed by governments. Today that idea has been obliterated with censorships, trolling, fake news being peddled not only by fringe twitter self proclaimed journos but also mainstream media and outright banning of divergent viewpoints all across the world. Anyone with a opposing viewpoint is a sellout now or a shill or a traitor, nuance has been flushed down the shitter.

 

[VorZakone]

I left the thread because it was nauseatingly pro US/NATO
Also why I posted the Chinese report link as a "Up Yours"

Yeah, how awful of NATO-members to support Ukraine with weapons and other aid to defend itself against an invading aggressor.

 

[Lemoor]

Yeah, how awful of NATO-members to support Ukraine with weapons and other aid to defend itself against an invading aggressor.

For the sake of symmetry let's pretend that everything Russia does, USA does there just as bad. And when it doesn't let's pretend that it was US's fault in the first place.

 

[Red Dreams]

The real enemy of the American people and Ukrainians are the politicians who have facilitated the operations of the MIC through NATO which needs to continue selling weapons.
The Russians were never the enemy.

All this has been explained above in various posts.

But I will link again.

https://peoplesparty.org/nato-ukraine/