this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
30 points (59.0% liked)
World News
32283 readers
793 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Again, it's like you didn't read the article except the tiny bits that fit your confirmation bias. It's not saying that America is "not independent", it's not saying the oligarchs "control America". It's saying disproportionate wealth equals disproportionate power. Which should be obvious, no person should have too much wealth or too much power. That's why the US government was designed with checks and balances built in, which is not working as well as desired, but works farrr better than you see in a dictatorship like Russia.
There's no secret group controlling this big US Empire of vassal states. It's many many rich people of varying degrees of wealth (from the US or the UK or elsewhere) all fighting amongst themselves for more, and most of the time hurting the rest of us common folk in the process.
I said that UK and the rest of US vassals states weren't independent because they're entirely dependent on US for military protection as well as US economy. This is the system US set up after the end of WW2 which is what NATO essentially is, a protection racket. US has a long and well documented history of political influence and interference in Europe, and entire books have been written on this subject. Claiming this is some sort of a conspiracy theory is the height of hilarity.
What it says in black and white is that the government in US passes policy in the interest of people with disproportional wealth. The study actually very clearly explains that the checks and balances US has are no better than in Russia. Again, don't take my word for it. Here's what the authors of the study conclude as reported by BBC:
Nobody is cherry picking anything here. You just keep acting like you're being told something outlandish out of sheer ignorance.
Nobody suggested anything of the sort. That's just a straw man you're using to pretend you have some point here. There doesn't need to be a secret group controlling US empire of vassal states. All that's needed is having shared class interests that rich people have. Meanwhile, it's obvious that US oligarchs want to exploit countries like UK to create more profit for themselves, and US being the dominant economy in the west puts them in a position to do so.
Here's where this turns into a low IQ conspiracy theory.
You take a man, whose entire life and personality are devoted to business and capitalism and profit. Born with a golden spoon in his mouth, he's in every wealthy inner circle, he even pays a ghostwriter to write him a book called "The Art of the Deal".
He gets voted into the single most powerful position in the US. He now has the single best position to enrich himself and his family, like he has literally devoted his life to doing. He talks to his inner advisors, they crunch him the numbers, and he decides he wants to pull out of NATO, because it costs the US more than it profits.
I'm a business man. That's how business works. You want to be profitable. If a deal isn't profitable, you back out. Only keep the deals that make your business money.
It's a no-brainer, if NATO was the imperial profit generating machine you claim it to be, Trump would have been all over it. Trump would have expanded NATO, expanded the borders, made more wealth. That's what Business men like Trump do. That's why Nazis, like Tankies, are anti-NATO. Nazis don't want to pay to protect other countries, Nazis want more power. Nazis would just invade a country, like Russia does, not tried to maintain an expensive treaty.
If you find yourself often agreeing with Nazis on worldview and policy, you need some self reflection.
I agree, your straw man is a low IQ conspiracy theory.
The reality is that there are plenty of different capital interests in US, and not all of them are aligned. Some US capitalists make money from financial investments and prefer globalization, others are industrial capitalists who run the military industrial complex. Anybody with a couple of brain cells to rub together would understand that US capitalists don't have homogeneous interests and that Trump represents the financial camp that doesn't see much value in NATO.
The only low IQ take here is to think that Trump speaks for your entire capitalist class when it's pretty clear that US capitalists are fighting each other.
I also love how you expose yourself as lacking any capacity for critical thinking here. Just because the nazis are against NATO doesn't make NATO a good thing. The fact that you frame what you support solely in terms of opposing what the people you don't like support really underscores your intellectual capacity. I guess if nazis eat food and breathe air then you should stop doing that too.
It's always hilarious to see how liberals are incapable of thinking of anything in systemic terms. Everything is just a knee jerk reaction.
I never framed NATO as a good thing, lol (reading comprehension is difficult I guess). I just pointed out that it costs the US more than it makes. Although given Putin's invasion, the capitalists of the military-industrial complex are 100% making a profit, so I guess they can thank Putin for his choice to make them lots of money.
True, the capitalists don't have homogeneous interests. You can't have an empire without an emperor - a single unchanging authoritarian leader that decides the movement for the rest of the country.
That very clearly frames NATO as a good thing since otherwise the orcs would invade you. Never mind the fact that NATO expansion was the reason for the war and that NATO is the primary destabilizing force in the world today.
You used so many words to say you're historically illiterate. Late stage empires have always looked precisely the way US empire looks today where the oligarchs put in political puppets to do the governing. Late Roman empire often had demented old men as emperors who didn't actually make any decisions.
I just love how you flaunt your ignorance with each and every comment.
I wouldn't call anyone an orc, but Russia is an imperialist power trying to expand its border through a military invasion, so that is always something you need to consider. I don't consider it to be a good thing to lay down and let colonizers run over you.
NATO is not good, but Putin gives reason for NATO to not disband yet.
Lol, no. Did it influence Putin? Sure. Did it make the decision to lie about invading and then immediately after invade like he's a helpless little puppet on strings? No.
The $1 billion question is why isn't Putin reaching out to create defensive treaties with his neighbors first. Why not a defense treaty with Ukraine?
Once you can figure that out, your worldview will start to be a lot more sane.
The US is not a late state empire like Rome. That's a * hits bong * "what if history is just like repeating itself over and over again man" kind of take. Not that no similarities exist.
Just list for me for how many years the US has a demented old man in charge.
Nobody who has any clue regarding the subject believes that Russia is an imperialist power trying to expand. Plenty of western experts have been saying that NATO expansion would lead to a war for many decades. This only became controversial to mention after the war started. For example, here's what Chomsky has to say on the issue recently:
https://truthout.org/articles/us-approach-to-ukraine-and-russia-has-left-the-domain-of-rational-discourse/
https://truthout.org/articles/noam-chomsky-us-military-escalation-against-russia-would-have-no-victors/
50 prominent foreign policy experts (former senators, military officers, diplomats, etc.) sent an open letter to Clinton outlining their opposition to NATO expansion back in 1997:
George Kennan, arguably America's greatest ever foreign policy strategist, the architect of the U.S. cold war strategy warned that NATO expansion was a "tragic mistake" that ought to ultimately provoke a "bad reaction from Russia" back in 1998.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., US Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987-1991, warning in 1997 that NATO expansion was "the most profound strategic blunder, [encouraging] a chain of events that could produce the most serious security threat [...] since the Soviet Union collapsed"
Even Gorbachev warned about this. All these experts were marginalized, silenced, and ignored. Yet, now people are trying to rewrite history and pretend that Russia attacked Ukraine because it's aN iMpeRiaLisT PowEr TrYinG tO ExpaNd. Maybe you can explain why Russia has never tried to invade places like Kazakhstan which would be a lot easier to do.
Oh weird, then why did NATO not disband after USSR dissolved and before Putin was in power?
Read above and educate yourself instead of making clown of yourself in public.
Because your regime ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and overthrew a democratically elected government to put literal fascists in power. Here's western media reporting on your friends
and here's what they've been up to since 2014 as even CNN reported at the time
You really love to straw man don't you. I gave you an example of a late stage empire not having a strong emperor in charge, nowhere did I make any comparisons with the US.
I dunno can you do basic math to figure out how may years it's been since you chuds elected Trump and then Biden?
This is astonishingly stupid, you completely sidestepped the question. Let's assume your point about 2014 is true, that's still 23 years Russia did not form a treaty, which would have prevented the coup. That should have been the easiest, most obvious first move to counter NATO. Instead Russia is tearing itself apart trying to keep its claws dug into a little bit of Ukrainian territory.
In any scenario where you create an image of the west as some kind of empire overlord powerhouse that manipulates all global events, you make Russia and ex-Soviets look hopelessly stupid and incompetent.
I did not sidestep any questions. Ukraine and Russia had normal relations until the coup, and Russia was even fine with Ukraine joining the EU at the time.
There was no need for a treaty because there weren't any tensions between Ukraine and Russia, Ukraine also expressed no ambitions to join NATO until the coup, you get that right? All the problems started after the coup.
In what universe is Russia is tearing itself apart exactly? Russian economy is growing, the government has higher approval rating than pretty much any western country, and Russia managed to refocus its trade away from the west. Even mainstream western media is openly admitting all this now.
Among the dumb things you've said in this thread, this certainly take the cake. The reason US emerged as a global hegemon out of WW2 was for the simple reason that US was not subject to the destruction of the war. While USSR, Europe, and China were completely devastated, US profiteered off the war, and then subjugated Europe to itself after when the Cold War started. I realize that you've had the misfortune of being subjected to US "education" system, but not understanding this is frankly embarrassing.
Let me get this right, all the experts are warning about NATO expansion putting pressure on Russia, but Russia is feeling no pressure from NATO expansion. All the experts are warning about it! But there's no tension. Again, you're just saying that ex-Soviets are severely stupid and incompetent, because apparently this was a big deal since 1997, but also no big deal until 2014. Your timelines are incoherent.
Lol, I would approve of my government if disapproving meant being thrown out of a window.
You know what, you're right. Russia is doing great, we're going to see a massive victory over Ukraine and the war will be over. Any day now.
Obviously the US had a huge economic advantage, explain how that economic advantage leads to the extreme geopolitical incompetence of ex-Soviets. The incompetence that means they can't from treaties, they dangle like a puppet by NATO strings, and start wars they can't finish.
I don't know what part of this you're having trouble wrapping your head around. Ukraine was a neutral state that did trade with both Russia and the west and wasn't joining any military alliances with either side. If you have some new information nobody knows about that contradicts this then feel free to share it.
Nowhere am I saying anything of the sort, these are just your delusional ramblings.
You'll have to forgive me, I keep forgetting I'm talking to a child.
How do you think this war is going to end exactly?
What extreme geopolitical incompetence are you talking about exactly? Last I checked, Soviets managed to fight against your despotic regime for over 70 years.
It's not about just Ukraine. You're so narrow, it's like you can't engage with my points outside of a pre-programmed response. Russia could be forming treaties with ANY and ALL neighboring countries. There is (almost..) no reason not to. If NATO has the geopolitical savvy to expand with treaties, what is stopping Russia. That's what you need to figure out.
Lol, do you deny the high rate of people falling out of windows in Russia?
Likely not for years, and either Russia will back out, or they will successfully genocide the people of Ukraine and take the bombed-out land.
"Soviets managed to fight" you mean ex-Soviets, because the USSR is kaput. Plus all the NATO territory expansion, the US empire growing its collection of vassal states, extracting and growing its wealth. That is your story, not mine. What does Russia have to show since 1991?
I think you've made a self referential comment here.
What is this then ignromaus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_Security_Treaty_Organization
Seems lower than the rate of people being murdered by cops in US, but do go on.
Weird way to say Russia will protect people in Donbas from the fascist regime your country is sponsoring.
Aside from having a growing economy, and being part of BRICS which is now a bigger economic bloc than the entire west you mean?
Exactly, now explain why NATO is overwhelmingly more successful in expanding its alliance. Why does 80% of Ukraine's population support joining NATO instead of SCTO?
Oh right, protection is when you genocide the majority to protect the minority.
You have a literal despot who has not relinquished power in over two decades leading an invasion, bombing cities, shooting civilians, and raping their wives and daughters. Tell me more about what you know of fascist regimes.
I have already explained to you that US was in the dominant position after WW2 by virtue of profiteering from the war. What part of that are you still struggling with?
You want me to explain something you made up?
Let's just take a look at a few slides from this lecture that Mearsheimer gave back in 2015 to get a bit of background on the subject. Mearsheimer is certainly not pro Russian in any sense, and a proponent of US global hegemony. First, here's the demographic breakdown of Ukraine:
here's how the election in 2004 went:
this is the 2010 election:
As we can clearly see from the voting patterns in both elections, the country is divided exactly across the current line of conflict. Furthermore, a survey conducted in 2015 further shows that there is a sharp division between people of eastern and western Ukraine on which economic bloc they would rather belong to:
Ukraine is clearly not some homogeneous blob, but a large country with complex cultural and ethnic situations.
The only one projecting here is you buddy given that your country is the one actually responsible for genocide across the globe.
If you want to see what an actual fascist regime looks like then maybe you should look back home. US empire is responsible, or shares responsibility, for close to 300 million deaths https://nyupress.org/9781583679890/endless-holocausts/
You fuckers murdered over 6 million people with your war on terror alone https://bylinetimes.com/2021/09/15/up-to-six-million-people-the-unrecorded-fatalities-of-the-war-on-terror/
Maybe take a seat there little fash.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s): https://piped.video/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source, check me out at GitHub.
Good job, you described every country that has ever existed.
You're also making the common US right wing fascist L of conflating empty land mass with population. Yes, it's a complex population, and a map of empty land looks 50/50, but there is a pretty overwhelming pro-West majority. The question that you still refuse to answer is why. Because it will break your worldview.
Oh, I do not at all defend any of the violence, the bombings, or the genocides committed by the US. I condemn every imperialist invasion, and the evil people who lead them. I will happily take part in imprisoning any US president for life. Because I have actual values. You wouldn't know what that's like.
Not doing any such thing, nowhere did I talk about land at all. I love how all your arguments are just straw man.
The parts that joined Russia do not have western majority as the map clearly shows. In fact, the whole civil war started in 2014 because western backed fascists went after the minority in the east. Of course, you don't give a shit about those people as you've amply demonstrated there.
I didn't refuse to answer anything. The only one with a bleak world view here is the one who thinks it's fine for western backed fascists to exterminate minorities. Thanks for admitting what you actually stand for.
The only thing you've condemned so far was Russia protecting people of Donbas from the fascists you support. You claim to condemn evil people while allying with literal fascists, and you expect people to take you seriously.
Literally right in the pictures you posted but nice gaslighting.
It's wrong for western backed fascists to exterminate minorities. It's wrong for fascist Russia to exterminate majorities. It's not hard for me to say, why is it hard for you to say?
I'm not allying with anyone. You're making the same L you accused me of earlier. Just because I condemn Russia doesn't mean I support the other side. I condemn both sides, several times now. I haven't seen you condemn fascist Russia even once.
The picture I posted illustrates the views of the demographic in the different regions showing that eastern regions that joined Russia have predominantly pro Russian views. The only one doing gaslighting here is you.
Russia isn't doing anything of the sort. Even UN plainly stated that, stop graslighting https://news.yahoo.com/un-commission-fails-evidence-russias-160057021.html
Except you very clearly are. You can deny it all you want, but it's quite clear from this thread that you support the fascist regime in Ukraine. You haven't seen me condemn fascist Russia because it only exists in your deranged mind.
The whole pattern of this thread has been you making fantastical claims then me providing sources contradicting your nonsense and you just pivoting to new fantastical claims without ever acknowledging your prior bullshit. You're like a little wanna be Trump.
"The UK is a vassal state to the US Empire" is a fantastical claim.
"Russia is a fascist xenophobic homophobic transphobic country ruled by a corrupt despot that made the sovereign decision to start an invasion" is real life.
Oh really? Contradict that.
It's not, and I've explained to you in detail why as well as having provided you with numerous resources on the subject. You've never actually contradicted anything I said either and just pivoted to other bullshit.
That's precisely what a xenophobe from US would say. Russia certainly has plenty of issues, however in practice it's not very different from many western countries. The real life is that the war was a product of decades of NATO policy, and it's not even hidden. RAND literally published a study titled Extending Russia where it outlines goading Russia into a proxy war in Ukraine as a way to achieve that.
Maybe spend some time educating yourself instead of shitposting on public forms. Just a thought.
Resources that say nothing about the UK being a vassal state or the US being an empire. You make a huge logical leap to conclusions based on your inherent biases.
Atrociously bad policy on LGBTQ rights, freedom of speech, but does better on homing the homeless and other human rights. Can't get rid of its corrupt ruling despot; the US has many corrupt government officials that don't see term limits.
I agree, Russia is overall no worse or better than the West.
Are you familiar with the narcissist's prayer?
"I didn't do it, and if I did, it's your fault"
Defense of Russia I've noticed follows the narcissist's prayer pattern. "Russia didn't do it, and if it did, it's the West's fault".
The sources make it very clear that UK politics are subordinate to US, and it's very clear that UK economic and military dependency on US means that it's not able to pass sovereign and independent policy that's at odds with US interests.
It's frankly depressing that you evidently don't understand how infantile this framing is. NATO has been expanding to Russian borders and violently invading countries for decades, but you expect that Russia should just ignore that. How do you think US would react if Russia ran a coup in Mexico, invited Mexico in CSTO, stated intention to put nuclear weapons in Mexico.
The reality of the situation is that Ukraine was a sovereign and neutral state that did trade with both Russia and the west. This wasn't good enough for the west, and the west decided to overthrow the legitimate government in Ukraine. That's how this war started back in 2014. And if you just ignore all that then you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.
It's pretty clear than neither one of us is going to convince the other of anything here, and we're just going in circles here. So, you can have the last word if that makes you feel better. I've said all I have to say here.