2024 US Election
JazzG -- because Trump wants credit and material benefit for ending it. If it ends because Russia's offensive collapses, then Trump won't benefit as Ukraine will regain power (and "rights") over its land, resources, and future. He also can't double down on support after decrying it for so long in his campaign.
jones distract from an actual order that exists called international law.
Yeah we both know none of the super powers in this world will give two shits about International law when it suits them.
MistaT He also can't double down on support after decrying it for so long in his campaign.
It wouldn't be the first time he did a U turn on anything, guy has free PR on social media and they'll just twist anything he does to say "Art of the deal"...
awooga83 Also UK needs to lean into Europe as you said the world had changed plucky little Britain is weak on our own we are going to need to be part of a European response to the new world order.
Plucky little Britain needs to ally itself with strong countries not a bunch of countries who are a bigger joke than us when it comes to military spending. Europe so far does not look like it is about to get its act in order anytime soon.
Now it's Steve Bannon who takes his turn to do a Roman salute on stage at the CPAC conference, to cheers from the gathered crowd of fascists.
jones I mean I will disagree on that what the Russians did in Syria is pretty horrific they prolonged a civil war resulting in many thousands of deaths and were involved in directly killing civilians. Okay Assad called them in but I'm not sure that makes it any better personally then any Western actions and the Assad government would have collapsed without their help. Similarly in Africa they were plundering resources and certainly not acting in the wider people's interests but it seems we'll disagree on this aspect.
I'm not saying the west aren't hypocrites they absolutely are just that Russia are not any different really any international law is meaningless if the world and the big powers don't enforce it and none of them have been. Russia started to murder dissidents in the UK under Putin which is a pretty big deviation from the previous post cold war period. I think that is a marked change and I don't know there are example of the US murdering dissidents like that? How was international law able to be implemented in that case as well?
- Edited
awooga83 I don't know there are example of the US murdering dissidents like that?
Well, the US just tortures them in Cuba until they die or kills them in drone strikes and calls them terrorists.
I agree that the Russians have absolutely no ethical leg to stand on, because no matter how evil the US and the so-called West may be, it doesn't justify evils perpetrated by others. Whataboutery is deferred vengeance, which is no kind of justice.
Kel Varnsen That is not even the worst part of it. Europe/EU has bought oil, gas, coal, fertilizer etc from Russia for €2-4 hundred billions since just 2022. The russian war effort is completely dependent on his funding (and western currency). All because of an insanely naive energy policy...
It is ridiculous. They are still exporting to Russia as well, they are doing it via other countries like Georgia, Armenia & Kyrgyzstan. It has been a completely half arsed and they have knowingly left these loopholes open, wars are good business at the end of the day! But now they want to give out lectures, give me a break. If they had gone cold turkey on Russia this war might have ended differently.
US trans people who've had their gender legally changed for a decade or more are finding they're being issued replacement passports with their gender assigned at birth marked. Land of the free.
awooga83 we will disagree on what Russia does in Africa because to be honest it doesn't seem you know very well what they're doing there. Their presence there is because the people of the Sahel were sick of French corporations exploiting their resources for decades and leaving them with none of the riches and a ruined environment.
jones I wouldn't profess to know everything about the situation or dispute French exploitation. But from what I read about Russia's activities there, I don't think they have acted in a positive way and have been involved in indiscriminate killing, looting and or also exploiting natural resources. My argument is not the west is better but Russia also aren't doing good in these foreign interventions.
The west is better. That's why people come to the west, and flee Russia.
- Edited
flobaba Full transcript here.
It's pretty much the "foreign policy realist" worldview in fact he also mentions Mearsheimer by name.
One interesting point made is that the US has in recent decades developed a habit of deciding how other powers will respond to changing events based on game theory rather than dialogue or prior declarations.
the stupdity of the EU is that Trump is presenting them with the political out to break out of the US hegemony but instead they insist on being the cheese eating surrender monkeys.
Burnwinter I don't really know who this guy is but skimming through the post cold war observations are not unreasonable that the US just presumed everything is going to be great and didn't take time to help Russia navigate that difficult moment. But I don't really believe this idea of just saying Ukraine won't join NATO changes Putin's views who published his own paper explaining why Ukraine was not a legitimate country and was created by the Soviet union and had no right to be autonomous.
awooga83 Yep this standpoint has become a particular lens on the conflict. It is a relatively conservative, right wing, "hard-nosed" view that sets aside right and wrong in its analysis of great power motives.
There are high stakes for Russia in the demand that Ukraine be protected by NATO's Article 5. The war has made these stakes even clearer. As we've seen and every Russian can see, Ukraine is struggling to sustain its campaign exactly because NATO military forces can't and won't directly join its lines.
The question "did NATO expansion cause the war?" belongs to 2022 now, what's relevant is understanding Ukraine will be forced into long term neutrality.
The war has been disastrous for Ukraine and humiliated Europe. It should have been avoided if there were any way to avoid it. It's killed hundreds of thousands, consolidated Putin's control of Russia, and it has achieved the United States' and not Europe's objectives by alienating Russia from the EU.
The only way to achieve any sort of autonomy is under and within imperial constraints. The question of whether its better to serve this or that empire is the wrong one, in my opinion. The question is how to best secure that modicum of autonomy, which should be evaluated on the level of community rather than nation, and certainly not that of state.
Ukraine should have immediately abandoned the US and Europe when it was clear they were only going to be made a battlefield, that so many would die, that so much would be lost. It was never going to be worth it, but everybody's gotta be a hero instead of do the real brave thing - lose power to preserve the chance for people to live long enough to build it again.