"Com-symp" ... what?
(Rest of the) World News
Burnwinter wrote:"Com-symp" ... what?
Communist sympathiser. 'Tis a figure of speech referring metaphorically to an unlikely to the point of being impossible scenario in the US, handed down to us from a historical period in which communist identity was even less common or widely understood than it is today.
Touché
I'm aware of what it means, but who in their right mind considers Russia communist?
Americans obviously. Old habits die hard I guess, but on a more practical level it's sensible to keep up the farce of Russia still being communist. Makes it easier to dehumanise the enemy and more importantly to discern good Western billionaire entrepreneurs from evil ex-Soviet oligarchs when you couldn't tell them apart otherwise.
Also probably more appropriate to put this in the Uplifting News thread but Madeleine Albright is dead
Rest in hell …
In case anyone is interested in the somewhat pointless, but still interesting things that (non-tankie) communists are saying about Russia's invasion of Ukraine, here are a couple of links:
9 days later
Horrible stories and images coming from Bucha at the moment.
Yes, the aerial photographs of mass graves coming out were so, so grim. Fuck war and fuck empires.
This op-ed from Russian state-controlled media is quite incredible too, really leaves you cold to the bone with its genocidal language:
I think what's most striking is that basically everyone in Russia knew that this was in the cards for Putin's regime, and Europe didn't listen. I've got friends in Moscow - one of them's Moldovian - who have warned about this scenario since long before the annexation of Crimea. It really makes you despair when you consider that the EU energy politics that were supposed to make Europe less reliant on Russian energy post-2015 have achieved the exact opposite, and now we're here.
The polarization of politics that this inevitably results in is so dangerous too. I loathe NATO and their values, but Finland is about to join now, and I reckon it will leave the Swedish government with little choice too. And who can honestly blame them, with an election coming up this fall and a right-wing block that is trying to sieze the opportunity by using a NATO application as an election promise?
The "Fortress Europe" mentality all this deepens is a problem, from militarisation to surveillance to hard borders.
I get the impression (have not tried to verify) that various publics are pleased NATO is pushing back hard for a 2% budget requirement for member states. To me the current conflict shows highly armed empires stage struggles with greater speculative threats and brutality.
I'm not a regular reader of Roar magazine, but this was an informative write-up on the ongoing rollout of EU border infrastructure in Greece, which hasn't drawn as much attention in the past couple of years.
The 2% aim was pushed in media, political talkshows etc for close to a decade here. Absolutely pathetic how at the drop of a hat the German government - again by an SPD chancellor , the German siter party of Labour - decided to not only close to double the current 1.2% GDP for military expenses but also to add a €100bn fund for it and to also enshrine it in the constitution to make sure that money isn't used for anything else.
Russia's actions almost feel like an afterthought seeing what the reactions are in the West, even disregarding the fact that Ukraine's civil war "in the heart of Europe" (literally a description for Ukraine in German newspapers these days) was waging for eight years before. Regardless of what happened they would've found a pretext to implement their plans, be it 'energy security' or defence spending.
Reminds me of your post years ago in the aftermath of the Paris attacks I think (might've been about 9/11 thinking about it), whatever the truth about the root cause is doesn't matter, what's relevant is how that 'truth' is used later on.
As for Greece - the 'stream' of migrants from SE Europe has mostly dried up in Germany long before Ukrainian refugees started arriving everywhere. I keep in touch with the refugee organisation I used to work with and the accounts I'm hearing from the people who've been to Greek camps are gut churning, gotten worse since the days of the second half of Tsipras' tenure and worse still since the return of Nea Dimokratia.
While I'd love nothing more than to blame the abject misanthrope Mitsotakis and his people for their bartering of the people arriving in Greece with Turkey the real reason for the situation deteriorating like this is of course sitting in Brussels with tacit support from Berlin.
It's only going to get worse in the next years and decades for what it's worth. Armed conflicts will always exist but climate refugees will become even more numerous than they are today, famines of course directly feed into civil or outright wars already but people leaving their homes and fields because of extreme weather will be the standard not far from today. My family's farm back home has lost two consecutive crops now, this past year due to extreme drought and the year before because of a flashflood and hailstorms which brought down all tree fruit and killed a good part of the chickens. If it weren't for the rest of the family pitching in God knows how they would've survived; imagine the anger you feel when you read people like Mitsotakis talking about Ukrainians being "actual refugees" unlike the dark skinned folk washing up their shores.
jones wrote:Reminds me of your post years ago in the aftermath of the Paris attacks I think (might've been about 9/11 thinking about it), whatever the truth about the root cause is doesn't matter, what's relevant is how that 'truth' is used later on.
Right, we are always "establishing the facts" in our debates while taking for granted what their implications should be (more war, more empires, more lives ended, trampled and displaced apparently).
Jones, I think it's at once impressive and predictable that the same liberals who waved through the militarisation of Frontex and the "legitimate concerns" of the "migrant crisis" express horror when a Ukrainian citizen of African origin is turned away at the Polish border.
One of the deep corollaries of a moralising politics of privilege is that you always have to perform the anxious rediscovery of things you already knew but didn't act upon.
https://thecradle.co/Article/analysis/8673
This is a somewhat biased article (although the fact it's biased is part of the point) about the current goings on in Pakistan, reads like a ridiculous political thriller at times. From the sounds of it it might have huge ramifications in Asia and even worldwide.
What kind of ramifications are you envisaging?
The opposition have been bribed to produce this kind of situation. Its felt obvious the US is instigating a regime change through such underhand tactics too because Pakistan won't let them set up military bases or broadly engage in a callous, asymmetrical and extractive relationship with plenty of ugly episodes since the Powell/Bush era. Not sure if the letter is just a prop but US was flipping their shit when Khan paid visit to Russia last month. So while dissolving the national assembly isn't the most democratic of maneuvers (but still an executive option), the popular vote may see through that bad faith actors don't assume control. The major ramifications I see are mostly domestic. You have certain BJP members emboldened by what they're seeing in Europe and similarly licking their lips at charting a roadmap to annexing what they feel is theirs.
It's not just Somalia too, South Sudan Ethiopia the DR Congo and as you probably know parts of Nigeria suffer from massive crop failures and collapsed supply channels, then you add Yemen and Afghanistan where the famines are entirely results of political decisions (not saying that the formers aren't also partially). All places named not only among the most exposed to climate change but the poorest in the world, but that doesn't even deserve mentioning.
I struggle with myself for doing it because Ukrainian people are obviously not at fault and deserve the same sympathy, but the disgustingly brazen contempt and ignorance the brown and black undesirables are treated with in contrast with the overwhelming support makes my blood boil. Be it that even here in Germany (with very little ties to the country) you can barely go anywhere without seeing the Ukrainian colours everywhere, or how the government decided to massively harm the country's economy and people's wellbeing in order to ruin Russia's economy. Recently even mentioning crises elsewhere in the world gets you the label of whataboutism, being a "Putin-understander" and similar nonsense.
It's not like the maiming and loss of human life around the world and the West's indifference to it is something new, and not even that the West has been claiming the high road all the time while being the main contributor to these catastrophes. Even though I understand that it's only being done because the one kicking off a war is now on the other side, the way that all of a sudden previously seemingly insurmountable mountains are suddenly moved in days because of this one war is what drives me mad.
I hear you bro. And your thoughts encapsulate my feelings on the matter quite well, especially the parts about feeling sympathy for Ukraine. If I'm honest, I don't. I see the hypocrisy and craziness clearly, so once we had extracted my brother I totally tuned out almost all war related news. They'll be alright.
An overview of some of the relations African nations have with Russia/Ukraine, and the possible economic impacts in those regions:
https://www.naijatimes.ng/the-war-in-ukraine-and-its-impacts-on-africa/
Heard a comment on the radio recently, apparently the conspiracy theorists now claim that not only in COVID not real, but also the conflict in Ukraine. It was an add for a story that was to be aired at a later time slot, so I did not hear anything more as to where these people are from.
8 days later
https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/
“The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia. They are supplying thousands of munitions and hopefully doing much else—sharing intelligence, for example—with the intent of killing Russian soldiers. And because fighting is, as the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said, ‘a trial of moral and physical forces through the medium of the latter,’ we must face a fact: To break the will of Russia and free Ukraine from conquest and subjugation, many Russian soldiers have to flee, surrender, or die, and the more and faster the better.”
That’s Eliot Cohen, former State Department advisor, in The Atlantic. I’m wondering your response to that, especially him calling, just openly declaring that the US is using Ukraine for what he calls a proxy war against Russia.
CHAS FREEMAN: Well, Professor Cohen is a very honest man, which is to his credit. And therefore, his adherence to neoconservative objectives is entirely transparent. And what he just said and what you quoted him as saying is consistent with the neoconservative objective of regime change in Russia, and it’s also consistent with fighting to the last Ukrainian to achieve it. I find it deplorable, but I have to say it’s probably representative of a very large body of opinion in Washington.
AARON MATÉ: And why does this view of Ukraine as essentially cannon fodder against Russia, why is it so prevalent in Washington?
CHAS FREEMAN: This is essentially cost-free from the United States as long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us. We are engaged, as Professor Cohen said, in a proxy war, and we’re selling a lot of weapons. That makes arms manufacturers happy. We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about. We’re going against an officially designated enemy, Russia, which makes us feel vindicated. So, from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie.
@[deleted], an interesting interview from your boy Macaes with Sergey Karaganov, former presidential advisor to Yeltsin and Putin
jones wrote:https://thegrayzone.com/2022/03/24/us-fighting-russia-to-the-last-ukrainian-veteran-us-diplomat/
“The United States and its NATO allies are engaged in a proxy war with Russia. They are supplying thousands of munitions and hopefully doing much else—sharing intelligence, for example—with the intent of killing Russian soldiers. And because fighting is, as the military theorist Carl von Clausewitz said, ‘a trial of moral and physical forces through the medium of the latter,’ we must face a fact: To break the will of Russia and free Ukraine from conquest and subjugation, many Russian soldiers have to flee, surrender, or die, and the more and faster the better.”
That’s Eliot Cohen, former State Department advisor, in The Atlantic. I’m wondering your response to that, especially him calling, just openly declaring that the US is using Ukraine for what he calls a proxy war against Russia.
CHAS FREEMAN: Well, Professor Cohen is a very honest man, which is to his credit. And therefore, his adherence to neoconservative objectives is entirely transparent. And what he just said and what you quoted him as saying is consistent with the neoconservative objective of regime change in Russia, and it’s also consistent with fighting to the last Ukrainian to achieve it. I find it deplorable, but I have to say it’s probably representative of a very large body of opinion in Washington.
AARON MATÉ: And why does this view of Ukraine as essentially cannon fodder against Russia, why is it so prevalent in Washington?
CHAS FREEMAN: This is essentially cost-free from the United States as long as we don’t cross some Russian red line that leads to escalation against us. We are engaged, as Professor Cohen said, in a proxy war, and we’re selling a lot of weapons. That makes arms manufacturers happy. We’re supporting a valiant resistance, which gives politicians something to crow about. We’re going against an officially designated enemy, Russia, which makes us feel vindicated. So, from the point of view of those with these self-interested views of the issue, this is a freebie.
Not sure how this war can be seen in any other light, apart from the Ukrainians who actually think they are freedom fighters.
Should have surrendered before a shot was fired.
Should have run their last two presidents out of the country when they started a civil war before that to be fair.
Speaking to Italian television station RAI, the pontiff said the weakest always suffered the most in wars, adding: “The refugees are divided. First class, second class, by skin colour, whether you come from a developed country or a non-developed one.
“We are racists. And that’s bad,” the Pope said.
21 days later
Finland have applied to join NATO and sounds like Sweden might do so as well.
7 days later
s=20&t=2ZYhOA9CkTQC4W22TELBfA
Quincy Abeyie wrote:s=20&t=2ZYhOA9CkTQC4W22TELBfA
"... Iraq too, anyway"
At least he's self aware.
6 days later
They'll "never" do anything substantial regarding gun laws in the US, but I wonder what makes a person actually go through with something like this.
Yawn.
We'll send them our "thoughts and prayers"
And continue to accept donations from the NRA. Pathetic.
Kel Varnsen wrote:They'll "never" do anything substantial regarding gun laws in the US, but I wonder what makes a person actually go through with something like this.
It doesn't fit the narrative that some people want but there is a serious mental health issue in America which both parties are pretending doesn't exist.
When those people then have access to guns you get these shootings. Guns have been widely available in America for a long time, these shootings have become a lot more common in the last 30-40 years.
"'No Way to Prevent This', Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens"
JazzG wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:They'll "never" do anything substantial regarding gun laws in the US, but I wonder what makes a person actually go through with something like this.
It doesn't fit the narrative that some people want but there is a serious mental health issue in America which both parties are pretending doesn't exist.
When those people then have access to guns you get these shootings. Guns have been widely available in America for a long time, these shootings have become a lot more common in the last 30-40 years.
Well yeah, many countries have serious mental health issues within their society. The whole point is that they don't also have fucked up gun laws on top. My own country (Australia) being a pretty good case in point. Of course they would benefit from properly addressing mental health (as would other countries), but that doesn't mean that tighter gun laws wouldn't be equally or even more effective in preventing mass shootings. Also no coincidence that those most opposed to increasing public spending on health care (including mental health) are basically the same fuckwits who oppose gun control.
Agreed Daz.
I think in America's case the state of mental health, such as it is, is tied into a bunch of other social issues too; e.g. no employment protection, lack of free healthcare, the high cost of education, and useless minimum wages that you can't afford a living on. It all contributes to a feeling that the game has been rigged if you're not born wealthy with people around you who can make certain assurances for your future.
These issues exist in other countries too though and they usually do not lead to this extreme amount of gun violence. The constitution is the biggest issue with the US.
JazzG wrote:Kel Varnsen wrote:They'll "never" do anything substantial regarding gun laws in the US, but I wonder what makes a person actually go through with something like this.
It doesn't fit the narrative that some people want but there is a serious mental health issue in America which both parties are pretending doesn't exist.
When those people then have access to guns you get these shootings. Guns have been widely available in America for a long time, these shootings have become a lot more common in the last 30-40 years.
In addition to what others have noted, guns have been widely available for a long time, but also in the last 30-40 years even looser gun legislation has been passed in a whole lot of places in the country. Yes there’s a mental health problem in the country, but it’s exacerbated by, guess what? Gun violence. People cannot be “okay” if at elementary school, or at high school, or pre Kindergarten, or the grocery store, or in the streets, or wherever next, they witness their fellow students or kids or friends or citizens get shredded to bits by an assault rifle. And it’s a multiplier effect right? The families and communities are devastated. They can never recover. They will, they must, have issues.
I think I know exactly what needs to happen to shake Americans. Someone needs to show on television the pictures of the scene. People need to see what these kids look like while they choke on their own blood from the puncture wounds in their lungs. With half their faces or bodies blown off. With their guts and brains leaking out, and the blood everywhere. Is that too gory? Unnecessary? Extreme? Well that’s what the parents of these kids go through when they go identify their sons and daughters at wherever they were gunned down. And they showed us George Floyd didn’t they? It didn’t move the needle much because it was just another black man getting murdered by police, and maybe you know he had some fake bills with him… But maybe, just maybe the lives of kids will hold a bit more value. Perhaps cause them to do something as simple as push up the age for gun ownership from 18 to 21, and legislation on improved background checks. You know, simple shit like that.
And they need to see it quickly too, before they forget by next week.
It's fine and important to talk about mental health. However, my impression is that it is framed as a way to deflect away from tighter gun control laws.
And now the husband of one of the teachers killed has himself died of a heart attack, leaving 4 children orphaned. The tragedy just continues to worsen.