You're viewing a single thread.
No, you shouldn't vote Democrat - both parties tend to have unimaginably negative foreign policy that perpetuates the American empire across the globe. This is the greatest source of evil in the world - not regressive immigration policy.
This is even why you should consider voting for Trump, regardless of what you think about him: he actually seems to endorse isolationism to some degree. I think they are probably the same concerning Israel, but it is not illogical to say that Trump would've done something else concerning the Ukraine, or that he would have be engaging with China very differently.
Dude what the fuck is wrong with you? Trump is a literal rucking fascist nazi. And so are you.
Anything which actively seeks to control others through coercion or social engineering is fascist, IMO, which makes Trump non-unique. One of the greatest manifestations of Democrat fascism is what we saw over the last half-decade with their attempts to create a false narrative around Trump, and to exercise all power available to obscure their own guilt of corruption & collusion by not investigating Hunter Biden and giving sweetheart deals... Moreover, what was the whole J6 debacle but the establishment reasserting dominance by throwing the book at middle aged peasants who dared smack cops on a police line and occupy a Federal space for a couple hours...? That's its own fascism.
Tell me how this "vote blue" thing is working out for Palestinians, and also for Ukrainians.
Sweet heart deals? Kushner got billions from the Saudis somehow, with nothing on the table to offer. Wow...totally not shady... The Ukrainians would have zero support under Trump. He shot down early support even before the invasion. Netanyahu wants Trump, so even less support for Palestine under him. Everything you mention is the definition of projection or hilarious delusion.
Plus yeah, sure, Kushner & Trump will enrich themselves immensely through those offices... and you rightly criticize them for it... But this is par for the course of politics. I concede this.
I am saying Trump is the better candidate in terms of trying to derail devastatingly stupid & evil American foreign policy because, for reasons separate than mine & yours, is more inclined to isolationism.
He allows for something like a multipolar world through isolationism, which is a step in the right direction of decentralization.
I already conceded the Israel point - he would be identical or potentially worse than Biden.
I think Zelenskyy agreed to break the Minsk II protocols and was, along with his cabinet and the Ukrainian deep state, preparing a long time for the fight with Russia, which is why no meaningful effort was made to avoid the war.
Maybe that timeline is off, as I've heard others say that the key decision was made in Feb/March of 2022 when it was then decided to not sue for peace early under the belief that he'd receive adequate American support that would defeat the Russians but that, of course, has proven to be a total joke: over a 100 billion dollars in aid has not been able to shift the course of the battle at all, and it seems obvious that other than sending actual NATO units and fighting WWIII, which could absolutely go nuclear, Ukraine was doomed...
Biden was fabulously stupid or maybe even evil, or a little of each, in this insane decision...
It's amazing to me that you are talkign about this like one of the bad things Trump would have done is potentially not give Zelenskyy false hope that he could win the war and retake Crimea...
The greatst support the Ukrainians could have had would've been not getting encouraged to stand their ground so as to avoid what is now over half a million dead young men all to preserve the subordinance of two provinces that were absolutely loyal to the formerly ousted Yanukovych.
Isolationism would work in favour of Putin, who has his own imperialist streak. I can't say whether Trump will be good or bad for China. His constant sabre rattling with China indicates he might start World War III should he becomes president again. Or, he may leave Asia-Pacific at the ire of American allies, leaving them to further Chinese influence.
This is not a good assessment of the situation at all...
If American power was truly benign, it would be interested in maintaining Ukrainian neutrality as much as possible to prevent the disaster we have just seen, and simply allow the processes of technology and modernization to erode totalitarian institutions in Russia and, similarly, fought corruption in Ukraine... It would not weaponize the most backwards & corrupt country in Europe through re-energizing the Maidan, throwing a coup using literal Nazi militiamen, and put it on a crash course with Russia, causing it to lose a war abysmally that could have been settled by insisting on some sort of elections in Luhansk/Donetsk with international observers...
Polling shows that it could've likely resulted in just some autonomous region that would still be within Ukraine...
But look at we got: at least half a million dead Ukrainians and now it has been all but guaranteed that more than Luhansk & Donetsk will be ceded to Russia.
You sound like a progressive that would be arguing that the US needed to go into Vietnam to offset Russian & Chinese expansion in southeast Asia, and that the 2 million Vietnamese dead and tens of thousands of working class Americans dying are just these necessary side effects of us being the good guyz.
it would be interested in maintaining Ukrainian neutrality
News flash, Ukraine overwhelmingly want to align with the West. Russia has no business telling Ukraine to remain neutral or else... anymore than US has no business telling another whom to align or they will coup.
Everything else you said is repeating Russian propaganda that has no bearing in reality. Yanukovych reneged on the deal with the EU at the last minute angering Ukrainians leading to Maidan revolution. Nuland tapes are circumstantial at best. The UN itself said they found no evidence of Ukraine systematically committing genocide on Russian speakers (as a matter of fact it is Russia whom they found committing genocide on Ukrainians).
Pushing for isolationism and apathy is precisely what Putin wants as it would mean leaving Ukraine on its own and time for Moscow to recover. The narrative of squarely blaming Ukraine for all the deaths in spite of Russia was the one who invaded unprovoked is suspiciously becoming more common. Usually peace advocates implore both sides, not blaming only one side and the aggrieved one at that.
Edit: oh look, a two hour old account repeating Russian propaganda. Not suspicious at all.
I disagree - Yanukovych was elected on he basis that he would be close to Russia. He won the popular election at one point. Of course a significant amount of Ukrainians were pissed that he pulled out of the deal, but it was predictable that a pro-Russian leader would take steps to try to at least maintain a balance between the West and Russia...
Maybe it is even the case that Yanukovych was heavy-handed in scuttling the EU deal, but the crazy violence that happened at the Odessa trade hall and the sweeping to power of these cartoon character super nationalists in the most corrupt country in Europe seems like a fair enough reason for places like Crimea and E. Ukraine to want to return to Russia...
Obviously, I would agree with the assessment that some amount of Russian intelligence operations and propagandists were invested in forcing the issue, but I've also heard interviews with pro-Kiev Ukrainians from the East conceding that their own home town in Luhansk/Donetsk is mostly pro-Russian.
Pushing for isolationism and apathy is precisely what Putin wants as it would mean leaving Ukraine on its own and time for Moscow to recover. The narrative of squarely blaming Ukraine for all the deaths in spite of Russia was the one who invaded unprovoked is suspiciously becoming more common. Usually peace advocates implore both sides, not blaming only one side and the aggrieved one at that.
I actually blame the West for all the deaths. Someone at some point convinced Zelenskyy that he would have enough support to turn back a Russian invasion - something he should have been far more skeptical about - and the results are absolutely catastrophic.
I am always anti-war, and thus I am against diplomatic maneuvers that fail to de-escalate hostile situations and create more friction.
Does it suck that the Ukraine is in such a difficult position? Of course. But the answer to this is not putting them in the boxing ring with the Russian bear. The results have been devastating and predictable.
BTW... No, i do not support Putin at all. The path forward for Russia is the same path forward for all nations: increasing wealth and insuring its equitable distribution so that the average persons enjoys a high standard of living and can together exert pressure for accountability & transparency of government...
But complaining that Russia, a country with so many issues after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is undemocratic all the while our own nations see civil rights never actualized or even eroded and control by capitalist oligarchs is... rich.
We also set up Russia to be that way - remember the Harvard Boys.
"Some Russian intelligence" interference is an understatement. It was clear they agitated Russian-speakers. After all, the Russians invaded Crimea with "green men" only for Putin to admit months later they are Russian agents.
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
Russia lied they won't invade and they did. Why should they be believed that they will uphold any truce or peace deal?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn't happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Let's even say that what you are saying is completely true - because it is, to some extent. Russia is not 100% well intentioned. I am not a Putinist by any stretch of the imagination...
What you are actually suggesting is that the Ukraine, the most corrupt & impoverished country in Europe at that moment, is being defended by the USA and NATO, because they are a bastion of liberty... and the USA, and NATO, who absolutely have not killed millions of people around the world exclusively to further their own geopolitical position and economic interests, who have absolutely never massacred actual progressives and leftists by the tens of thousands in places like Chile, Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, are totally backing the Ukraine because they have the noblest of intentions in defending.... :::: puts on Zelenskyy's gravitas and accent ::: democracy and human rights.
Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn't), it does not mean that the US and the Kiev regime are forces of democracy and progress. In fact, if history teaches us anything, the fact that the Kiev regime is working closely with the CIA and the USA means it is going to be a corrupt, backwards state... Or, as Zelenskyy stated it himself...
Ukraine wants to be Big Israel.
Imagine if the US lost the entire East Coast and being told to just give up retaking it instead of shedding more blood.
OK, but let's imagine that the entire East Coast is ethnically majority English, and they speak only English, and traditionally vote for English candidates that advance closer relations with England... And let's also imagine that they were actually assigned to be part of America by England herself in the middle of last century for administrative purposes when England used to rule the US...
... And then, after the English speaking, English descent President, who was elected popularly, with the East Coast as his predictable heartland of su pport, many English on the East Coast were completely pissed off. New York completely voted itself to be a part of England right away -- of course, English officers and pollsters were there to facilitate this and the numbers were wonky, but a lot of people generally accepted it at the time because it was reasonably explicable...
... And, like, we've now been fighting a civil war without the English for 7 years... the rest of America has agreed to take in tons of military support and training from China, and is lining itself up to become a threat towards not just the East Coast, but of course, England, and the English alliance system more broadly...
And the East Coast would be joining a comparatively 2, 3x more wealthy and less corrupt state that has its best interests at heart by joining England, as opposed to feeling like the neglected, actualy despised part of America, which is a rapidly failing state ruled by a series of corrupt oligarchs... Not entirely unlike England, but [i]measurably worst in terms of standard of living, at least..![/i]
It's pretty complicated, isn't it?
And thinking that globalisation will democratise Russia is wishing that China and Saudi Arabia will also be the same. People have thought about that to those countries but it hasn’t happened. Autocratic countries know how to insulate themselves from outside influence, precisely because they do not allow dissenting voices, especially from outside. They are autocratic after all.
I said prosperity and not globalization for a reason, though... Globalization is a front for global capital.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades - I don't think you'd dispute that, either. The only issue is that China has incorporated its emerging bourgeoisie into a more jingoistic, confrontational foreign policy outlook, IMO.
They are still just ruled by oligarchs like the West.
A two hour old account parroting pro-Trump with Russian propaganda. You make an interesting spin I have to say.
Yeah man I'm a freshman but I think I am cut out for the team.
You're telling my assessment is not good when yours is really just...really bad.
Firstly, Yanukovych won by slim margin of 3% at 48% versus 45% to his opponent. He was hardly "popular". Second, his administration was mired with corruption. The Wikipedia article sums it up quite nicely with good sources. Even Russian-speaking Donbas don't like him.
Second, it is laughable you are pushing for the corruption narrative of Ukraine often repeated that serves Russian propaganda. What countries aren't corrupt? Except there are more so that are corrupt. And Russia just happens to be way more corrupt than you wish to portray it to be. Most significantly, Ukraine wants to join the EU to be precise, but Putin sees EU admission as tantamount to joining NATO. They are two completely different things. Separate polling showed Ukraine don't want to join NATO, until Russia agitated the Ukrainians prompting them to yearn to join NATO. Russian interference also made Ukraine want to join EU even more, and the same poll showed Russian-speaking Ukrainians do not feel neglected.
Since you are pushing for the corruption narrative, the EU is way less corrupt and richer than Russia. The latter has 1/5th of the GDP of Italy. Russian-aligned countries are known for being dictators. Why would Ukraine then join Russian sphere of influence when the EU has better standard of living, more democratic and less corrupt? Looking at corruption perception index, Russia ranks near bottom as one of the most corrupt. Really? You're telling Ukrainians to side with a more corrupt entity than the less so?
Let's go back to the NATO narrative. The West knows fully that Ukraine is a red line for Russia. If the West really wants Ukraine to join NATO, they sure danced around it for decades. Recent declassified British communications showed the Blair administration rejects Ukraine joining the EU for said reasons. Kremlin sees this as Ukraine also joining NATO (also the EU wants Ukraine to be less corrupt and democratic). Because for Russia, it's either Ukraine joins them or not at all in any capacity. Russia wants to carve their own sphere of influence. Russia have their own political philosophy of Eurasianism. Moreover, seeing a more prosperous neighbour could make Russians realise the bad situation they are in under Putin's rule. Of course, any dictators would not want getting ideas for a better way of life as it would undermine their own rule.
And really, your argument about US East Coast joining England for being "more prosperous" could not be anymore less convincing. UK is less prosperous and not any more or less corrupt than the US (but they are both less corrupt than Russia nonetheless). The UK has GDP of $2.44 trillion while the US has $15.68 trillion (and for crying out loud, the state of New York alone has GDP of $2 trillion that could rival UK and could do well on its own). Italy that is 10% the size of Russia, has outsized more GDP than Russia. So you're saying it is better to side with Russia on this despite all the metric?
As for the supposed democratic desire by Luhansk and Donbas to join Russia, you do realise that the referendum was a sham? Held at gunpoint during a conflict and with a low voter turnout? Even televised reporting from Russia showed they counted ballots as "yes" that are not even filled out! No nation recognise the "results" except for those beholden to Russia. There's a reason as to why the UN General Assembly overwhelmingly voted that the invasion of Ukraine was illegal and a sham and do not recognise the "secession" of eastern parts of Ukraine.
So, your claim that the West is supporting a corrupt regime is not only utter bs, but also spewing Russian propaganda, regardless of whether or not you claim to have no love for Putin. You could argue for any spin and yet you picked the worst talking points to stand one that could be easily refuted. You go for corruption spin and yet you're implying for Ukraine to side with a country that is more corrupt, less democratic and less prosperous. For someone repeating leftist buzzwords like "bourgeoisie" and "capital", you sure are contradicting yourself for tacitly supporting Putin as lesser evil and not the hyper-evil capitalist kleptocrat that he is by stating "Even if Putin is 100% in the wrong (which he isn’t)".
Really, you're not fooling anyone. But I will give you credit, you sure make interesting spin.
I also believe China & Saudi Arabia have become measurably more liberal places over the last few decades
More liberal, if you ignore the lack of civil liberties in those countries.
This is a propaganda bot
Honestly, I'm here to debate faux progressives that think they can support the oligarch's foreign policy because "ackshually, this all benefits us... Just like the erosion of civil liberties when it's to oppose Drrrroomppfff..."
Lol, calling others "faux progressive" when you just literally implore people to nevermind his regressive immigration policy and support Trump for his isolationism. No sane progressive will support Trump's xenophobic and racist immigration and be apologetic for hypercapitalist, imperialist and kleptocratic Putin.
Lmao you're just shedding your true skin layer by layer.
Truth be told, I am not really a progressive in any conventional sense of the word - but I am in many other ways and, more importantly, I remember the anti-war left. As I am a pacifist and the anti-war movement is close to my heart, I always feel that progressives who cheered on the Ukraine conflict were not really progressives...
And let me also point out: more people are killed and negatively impacted by US foreign policy than any border wall. Yes, of course, I will not ask any progressive to get on board with Trump's immigration policy, but let's also remember: even with the Republican congress, his policies were largely ineffective. There's also something to be said about immigration reform and coming up with a system where everyone who comes is legal and not exploitable.
I do not want to be too contentious because my goal here is to try to appeal to progressives to be more anti-war going forward and rethink their positions on the Ukraine war... But, more importantly, haven't we all just seen what the Biden administration is doing in regards to Palestine?
Establishment Democrats do not deserve your vote - displacing establishment democrats and replacing them with actual progressives should be the #1 priority of any US American progressives, right?
There is a thing called "just war". Ukraine has clearly been wronged by being attacked unprovoked. It is only right to support them. There have been instances when the West had been wrong for waging war or supporting another, except this one is different. Telling Ukraine to give up is like telling UK and Republic of China to give up as well, when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were rampaging amd killing civilians wantonly. And mind you, there were uninformed peaceniks and isolationists back then doing the same as you're doing now before the US entry into World War II. The naive and misinformed peaceniks and centrists somehow think they will not be affected in an increasingly globalised world. But then again, most people have tunnel vision.
Telling Ukraine to surrender is letting the UN Charter to respect national sovereignty be demolished, a cornerstone that kept world peace, for the most part, intact for the last 80 years. This enlightened centrism is only serving at the benefit of authoritarian countries that don't respect basic human decency and rules. "Evil prevails when good men do nothing", literally what this misinformed (or perhaps fake) centrist take on Russian invasion.
As for Palestine, Biden himself is getting fed up with Israel. But political pressure keeps him from abstaining support.
I'm not saying all in all that the West and US is the best option for world order-- I prefer a multipolar world-- but that's how it is right now. The West isn't some moustache twirling villain concocting plans all the time in a backroom, but there is no unified policy in the West and their policies must be judged on their own merit. Invasion of Iraq: bad. Supporting Ukraine: good. The usurping of US-led Western hegemony, which is deeply flawed, is for another time.
Also, I'm not American so I don't vote. The thing is with Americans and lack of progressives in Democratic party is that ordinary progressives do not vote, or at least mobilise. As much as establishment machinery is hard to destroy, apathy is as much to blame (which serves the corrupt both local and abroad).
Edit: wording
There is a thing called “just war”. Ukraine has clearly been wronged by being attacked unprovoked. It is only right to support them. There have been instances when the West had been wrong for waging war or supporting another, except this one is different. Telling Ukraine to give up is like telling UK and Republic of China to give up as well, when Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were rampaging amd killing civilians wantonly. And mind you, there were uninformed peaceniks and isolationists back then doing the same as you’re doing now before the US entry into World War II. The naive and misinformed peaceniks and centrists somehow think they will not be affected in an increasingly globalised world. But then again, most people have tunnel vision.
The Russian invasion can be seen as interfering with one side in a civil war that is historically a part of their country and has little to do with the Ukraine, and it does not have many parallels to WWII, IMO... I think each conflict has to be treated differently.
You also use some example where the entire tide of battle is shifted by the entry of the US - of course, such a thing could also happen here, but it could just mean that the war goes nuclear.
Telling Ukraine to surrender is letting the UN Charter to respect national sovereignty be demolished, a cornerstone that kept world peace, for the most part, intact for the last 80 years. This enlightened centrism is only serving at the benefit of authoritarian countries that don’t respect basic human decency and rules. “Evil prevails when good men do nothing”, literally what this misinformed (or perhaps fake) centrist take on Russian invasion.
Here we are at the point where left wing progressives talk about how world peace has been maintained by the UN charter forgetting by the millions dead in Vietnam and Iraq at the hands of the US who blatantly could ignore these things.
As for Palestine, Biden himself is getting fed up with Israel. But political pressure keeps him from abstaining support.
I will not argue with someone who wants to believe that Biden has the right idea on this, but political pressure keeps him in the game of supporting a war abroad. This can be seen as part of my thesis: someone like Trump who is not beholden to the system has more ability to break from foreign policy norms.
I’m not saying all in all that the West and US is the best option for world order-- I prefer a multipolar world-- but that’s how it is right now. The West isn’t some moustache twirling villain concocting plans all the time in a backroom, but there is no unified policy in the West and their policies must be judged on their own merit. Invasion of Iraq: bad. Supporting Ukraine: good. The usurping of US-led Western hegemony, which is deeply flawed, is for another time.
Oddly enough, with the hundreds of billions in aid given to the Ukraine, the usurping of Western hegemony really isn't for another time. The multipolar world just arrived.
Ukraine is already a lost cause - the most recent declaration appears to make it so that Ukrainian women will now be drafted and sent to the front alongside their men since they are so starving for soldiers. It's unprecedented.
The Russian invasion can be seen as interfering with one side in a civil war that is historically a part of their country and has little to do with the Ukraine, and it does not have many parallels to WWII, IMO... I think each conflict has to be treated differently.
Hitler also saw Danzig as part of Germany and used that as pretext to invade Poland. Eastern Ukraine is not more Russian than Danzig is German. The Ukrainian borders were already agreed upon after the fall of Soviet Union.
Here we are at the point where left wing progressives talk about how world peace has been maintained by the UN charter forgetting by the millions dead in Vietnam and Iraq at the hands of the US who blatantly could ignore these things.
I concede on Iraq. Though on Vietnam, the US involvement is at the invitation of South Vietnam. US also did not invade North Vietnam. Same as Soviet Union was in Afghanistan. USSR did not invade but was invited by the ruling Afghan communist government.
Moreover, just because another country acted with impunity doesn't mean another could. Tell me you support imperialism without saying you do simply because others did.
Edit: Lastly, allowing Russia to get away with this sends signal to China to also invade Taiwan, and beyond.
I will not argue with someone who wants to believe that Biden has the right idea on this, but political pressure keeps him in the game of supporting a war abroad.
He still has to appease subordinates, peers and electorates. It's ill-informed to think he is immune to political pressure, especially in a democracy. Leaders, even dictators, rarely have absolute power.
This can be seen as part of my thesis: someone like Trump who is not beholden to the system has more ability to break from foreign policy norms.
Breaking norms such as stealing classified documents, especially relating to Russia? I suppose you don't mind breaking foreign policy norms that support Russia?
Ukraine is already a lost cause - the most recent declaration appears to make it so that Ukrainian women will now be drafted and sent to the front alongside their men since they are so starving for soldiers. It's unprecedented.
Ukraine already have women in the armed forces anyhow. And it is not like this makes any difference to Ukraine who is already in a total war. Russia, on the other hand, is suffering massive demographic crisis and labour shortage even with partial mobilisation. Putin will call upon more soldiers. The cost of war is creeping into the Russian society, which Putin had been trying to avoid but it will eventually come full circle.
This account is 3 hours old.
Before, the most egregious troll I have seen was a five month old account with no prior posting history, threw me a wall of links on DM to "show" why Russia is the victim in the ongoing conflict.
Give me some time and I'll melt your heart.
