I don't think they are conscripts are they? Edit: my bad a lot are.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
I don't think they are conscripts are they? Edit: my bad a lot are.
Technically not, but many are apparently forced or blackmailed into signing the contract that makes them professional soldiers.
I do agree with that, and accept the realpolitik that exists. My complaint was more against the 'Great Powers' view - the idea that the US have a sphere of influence and Russia have a sphere of influence and that this sphere should be left alone and not challenged. If we take that view then we have to turn a blind eye to everything the US has done in Central and South America, which a lot of posters in this thread have (quite rightly) objected to.
Spheres of Influence is an unfortunate reality.
An attempt to end the cold war was made after the Cuban Missile Crisis by Khrushchev and Kennedy who realized that humanity was far more important than politics. Kennedy was done away with by those who wanted to maintain the status quo and Khrushchev was marginalized by his side.
If the cold war had ended there would have been a movement by both sides to live in relative peace even if there were differences in ideology.
You Can live with your enemies.
The first step now should be to find a way to peace and move from there.
There can be no victory without peace.
But first there must be a Will to find peace.
When we're talking about agency that sounds like we're in the moral realm, right? While the should you're using, in the sense of should we or shouldn't we leave the powers or spheres or whatever to their own, surely that's in the realpolitik sense.
Of course the US running wild in the Americas is morally inexcusable. At the same time, we know what these great powers are like. We know that certain democratic actions are "provocations" and perceived threats, and therefore give reasons for invasions and coups. I don't think pointing out that integrating Ukraine in the West is a threat to Russia is any more a defense of Russia than pointing out that free elections of leftist governments is a threat to the US. There's no moral excuse or reason to what Russia is doing in Ukraine, that doesn't mean that they don't have their reasons and that "we" haven't willingly given them some.
In the realpolitik sense we do turn a blind eye to what the US has done.
To be fair to Chomsky: neither are most others. He's just a guy giving his opinion. However, his bias is blatant and one should know that when listening to him.
Many equate loyalty to your country to loyalty to your government.
This is the lie that is being pushed through the media.
No government truly represents its people. They all fall short.
The US is a great place to live. But the government is totally corrupt.
It kills people overseas and at home.
We need to hold them accountable for their actions.
People need to separate their love for their country to the actions of their government.
All you have to do is think things through.
This is the lie that is being pushed through the media.
No government truly represents its people. They all fall short.
The US is a great place to live. But the government is totally corrupt.
It kills people overseas and at home.
We need to hold them accountable for their actions.
People need to separate their love for their country to the actions of their government.
All you have to do is think things through.
Sure, but I am not sure how that relates to anything in this thread...? Or what point are you trying to make beyond these high-level comments?
He seems a tad sympathetic to Russia in other posts.
Another view would be that much of the Arab public lives under some form of autocracy or absolute monarchy and wouldn't have a full appreciation for a loss of democracy.
Merely clarifying my comments here and in the other thread are about what the US government has done.
There's far more US and NATO apologists in this thread so let's not start calling out people for having sympathy towards a genocidal state as that seems to be status quo in here.
another view would be that third world "humanity" hasn't evolved into beings who desire freedom and democracy (proved by the iraqi response to 2003), and hence is indifferent to the singular loss of these in ukraine. it's really unfortunate that this evolution stops east of ukraine and south of greece, but biology is funny that way. i hope technology evetually improves and the west inserts these genes into my great-great-grandkids.
Much of the latter bit has to do with Ukraine is a western nation and media organizations in Europe and North America are incentivized to broadcast news that is of interest to their core viewers in both locations. So, things that happen in the Middle East or Asia are not likely to be covered as conflicts that are "closer to home".
You ever read a Red Dreams post before? That's how they go.
You are talking about ratings. Which is the problem with corporate media.
An independent media perhaps like NPR would do a better job.
Though tbh I do not watch tv anymore.
But has anyone on here expressed their unconditional support for the US government simply out of their patriotic love of the US? Mostly people in here aren't even from the US. I just don't see the concrete things in this thread that you could be responding to with that specific post.
Even NPR cover things from a US perspective. Ultimately all outlets rely on money to fund their operations and most of them obtain it through advertising to a specific audience. Therefore their news coverage is likely to conform to the same audience.
True.If the goal is to give unbiased coverage, the best way would be to go with non profit media.
I don't know where their support commons from. But it is clear those who have decided that the US/NATO position is correct have bought into the media narrative that justifies it.
That of course is simply not the truth.
And I mention both threads.
The truth is that Russia should be allowed to commit genocide? That your opinon?
Clearly these discussions are above your paygrade.
Not a media narrative, RD. Listen to the countries who want(ed) to join NATO and understand why they do. They fear Russia, and with good reason as there is plenty of historical evidence that says they will be subjugated by Russia's imperialist ambitions without sufficient protection.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm (probably a few thousand pages of light reading here Admittedly I've cherry picked only a couple of bits)
I'd be more concerned with the outlets that are parroting Russian operative President Donald J. Trump's view that NATO needs to go and ask myself, who is funding this side of the story and why? There's every chane it's Russia and the intent is to create division in the US (and the rest of the west) as that has been Russia's biggest foreign policy success in the last 5 years.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm (probably a few thousand pages of light reading here
Admittedly I've cherry picked only a couple of bits)I'd be more concerned with the outlets that are parroting Russian operative President Donald J. Trump's view that NATO needs to go and ask myself, who is funding this side of the story and why? There's every chane it's Russia and the intent is to create division in the US (and the rest of the west) as that has been Russia's biggest foreign policy success in the last 5 years.
Not a media narrative, RD. Listen to the countries who want(ed) to join NATO and understand why they do. They fear Russia, and with good reason as there is plenty of historical evidence that says they will be subjugated by Russia's imperialist ambitions without sufficient protection.
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-105shrg46832/html/CHRG-105shrg46832.htm (probably a few thousand pages of light reading here
I'd be more concerned with the outlets that are parroting Russian operative President Donald J. Trump's view that NATO needs to go and ask myself, who is funding this side of the story and why? There's every chane it's Russia and the intent is to create division in the US (and the rest of the west) as that has been Russia's biggest foreign policy success in the last 5 years.
Always respect your views mate.
But on this we have to agree to disagree.
I stand by my original belief even before all this confrontation happened. That NATO was a vehicle for the MIC to sell weapons.
If Henry Wallace had become president instead of Truman, the Cold War would never have existed.
I'm not saying the Soviet Union/Russia are a peace loving all embracing nation. They have their interests as we do. And as history has proven our interests are far from the best interests of the countries we have intervened in. Whenever they say American interest, translate that to mean Business Interests. But we could have lived with them in relative peace. They were our allies after all.
I had linked the Peoples Party views which I for the most part I agree with. You can look it up. Feel free to disagree.
I'll leave it at that.
And I understand if others feel/think differently.
I think that's more of a recent thing, though, sold under the auspices of improved joint tactical operations. There are benefits to that, as any country who's lost soldiers to friendly fire would probably agree.
The above is most likely true unless you extrapolate the MIC to include European defence agencies but countries and blocs like the EU and even the Warsaw Pact have always looked to develop their own defence industries rather than relying on others for weapons where their source might suddenly dry up due to geo-politics. Everyone but the Czechs, that is, who told Russia they'd make their own version of the Kalashnikov and did quite well at it, too.
The long term success of NATO so far has certainly enabled and encouraged all of its member states to share technology and use the same kit, which certainly benefits America's massive MIC more than any others but there is plenty of this stuff being made in Europe, too.
Hard to square that with Wallace’s views of the USSR after 1948.
The Untold History of The United States by Oliver Stone is a good place to start. The book and DVDs are available at libraries.
All the best mate.
Been thinking about this a bit. I’m struggling to come up with genuine (non-Russian) Russia specialists - academics, journalists, etc. who have made Russia the primary focus of their career - who share the so-called realist approach to this conflict embraced by Mearsheimer, Chomsky and others. The only one that I’m really aware of who comes close would be Anatol Lieven, who has authored a book on Russian-Ukrainian relations. Are there many other historians/political scientists, etc. who focus on Russia and speak Russian who accept this approach?
And im getting tired of see people being so naive and that everything is white and black and that as russia has no right to do this fecked up invasion, think that US had been stirring the pot as had always done with the japanese, in south america and middle east. US government cant be happier of what ia going on
And if you cant see it well, your problem. US stir the pot before 2014 investing billions. As in many other places. Geopolitics they call it and ukranians are paying the price of being in the middle of the game of thrones
You mean discussing what brought a coup in ukrania that brought russia to attack ukrania to steal crimea from were they attack now? You mean US that supllies ukrania in this war that had interests in ukraine since always?
Is that wr cant talk of this conflict with all the agents involved? Doesnt a history in a region matters to understand what happens?
Frankly ridiculous
And I'm getting sick and tired of stupidity and cynicism.
If you seriously imagine that Biden or anyone in the US government is happy to see tens of thousands of Ukrainian people killed, cities razed to the ground, rapes, murders and torture .... then you have an incredibly twisted and dark view of things.
There is no "game of thrones". There is a psychopathic dictator ordering his military to destroy Ukraine and erase it from the map. And there are democracies around the world mostly doing their best to help Ukraine defend itself whilst minimising the risk of nuclear conflict. There are no shades of grey here.
So you can feck right off with your nonsense.
Naive
If I shoot you in the head does it really matter to you why I shot you or how the doctors are going to save our life? Currently it does not matter HOW we got here, that is a discussion for the future, what matters is that one country decided, unprovoked (in reality), another should not exist and attempted to destroy it, it's government, and it's people.
I am not discussing thay ukraine needs to be saved. But this ials another proxy war were russia is trying to dominate by force an area of their influence while US gets to debilitate the russian army and ecpnomy (while getting europe of customers) and test new armament
So yeah it mattera why we got here and where we gonna go because the present is unavoidable anyway
Yes, I am telling you that if you’re going to muddy up the war thread with your whining and accusation making about the US and why Russia invaded months ago, then I’ll be moving your posts to this thread.
I don’t recall asking, but okay.
Keep this in [this] thread. That’s why it was created.