Russian invasion of Ukraine | Fewer tweets, more discussion


As much as I appreciate AOC for what she does on other topics that matter for people who share more or less her age range and interests like me, I have to disagree with her explanation here. The 4th Amendment should sit in the corner when it comes to assets belonging to crazy rich people associated with a government that is a mortal enemy to everything the United States (or the West for all it matters) stands for.

Seriously, the 4th Amendment should not apply here.
 
Last edited:
The left-right spectrum is flawed, I agree, because any analysis based solely on it excludes a lot of things (e.g. is it left-wing or right wing to be opposed to nuclear power, and why?).

But within the context of the original discussion, most political activists do identify as being somewhere on that spectrum, rightly or wrongly. And within that context there is mostly definitely a centre ground range, as well as extremes of both left and right. To deny this is ridiculous.

Regardless of what you claim about anarchism, it does not sit well on the left-right spectrum. For example, there are plenty of libertarians, especially in the U.S, who most certainly would not consider themselves left-wing, not to mention a variety of "survivalists" who oppose all forms of authority and favour extreme self-reliance.

It doesn't matter whether or not Yeats was specifically talking about democracy, because it's clear that that part of the poem is partly about extreme fringes vs a more moderate centre.

Unfortunately we're arguing about politics and poetry, so we're never going to agree. We're also taking the thread increasingly off-topic, I can only imagine Raoul hasn't seen this yet or we'd have been moved to the Geopolitics thread in a second.
 
I don't get this explanation. What kind of sanctions doesn't violate that amendment?

The kind sanctions that allow a president to do impose them without congressional oversight, I think she’s saying. I don’t agree with her but I can understand that she wouldn’t want to set a procedural precedent.
 
Kyiv just attacked. Two explosions, some smoke, but seems relatively minor.
This will sound strange, but I think this is actually a good sign for Ukraine about how the war is going.

This is just a terrorist attack to strike fear into the Ukrainians, and if they would be successful on the battlefield they wouldn't need to perform such strikes.
 
I don't get this explanation. What kind of sanctions doesn't violate that amendment?
I guess the argument would be that frozen assets aren't forfeited, and can be again accessed by sanctioned parties if the sanctions are later removed.

But obviously that defense seems very out of character for her. If someone introduced a bill "urging the president to seize assets of US billionaires to pay off student loans" would she vote against it and claim that it would be urging the president to violate 4th amendment rights of billionaires?
 
This will sound strange, but I think this is actually a good sign for Ukraine about how the war is going.

This is just a terrorist attack to strike fear into the Ukrainians, and if they would be successful on the battlefield they wouldn't need to perform such strikes.
No, you’re right. There is a lot of desperation from Russia, but it’s hard for your country to be winning when it is subjected to state terrorism daily.
 
I wonder if she is a little embarrassed by who her few bedfellows ended up being. Even Boebert supported it.



And there it is.

So I read this as fear of the next Republican candidate using this bill as a precedent to seize assets of whoever they 'choose' are criminals.
 
No-one is talking about each and every individual case, such as yours or such as the particular far-left party you mention. But in general terms it's true to say that far-left parties are not great supporters of democracy, which is why many of them for decades supported the old Soviet Union, and even now are extremely muted in any criticism of Russia.

A theory that explains something except in multiple different cases when it doesn't... it doesn't sound like a very good theory to me. Again, it just sounds lazy.
 
A theory that explains something except in multiple different cases when it doesn't... it doesn't sound like a very good theory to me. Again, it just sounds lazy.

In fairness, generalisations are almost by definition lazy. By the that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a point. The problem is when someone characterises things like this as being a defining factor in the right/left extremities.
 
The left-right spectrum is flawed, I agree, because any analysis based solely on it excludes a lot of things (e.g. is it left-wing or right wing to be opposed to nuclear power, and why?).

But within the context of the original discussion, most political activists do identify as being somewhere on that spectrum, rightly or wrongly. And within that context there is mostly definitely a centre ground range, as well as extremes of both left and right. To deny this is ridiculous.

Regardless of what you claim about anarchism, it does not sit well on the left-right spectrum. For example, there are plenty of libertarians, especially in the U.S, who most certainly would not consider themselves left-wing, not to mention a variety of "survivalists" who oppose all forms of authority and favour extreme self-reliance.

It doesn't matter whether or not Yeats was specifically talking about democracy, because it's clear that that part of the poem is partly about extreme fringes vs a more moderate centre.
I agree, left-right is often unhelpfully reductionist, especially when you start talking about politics in a little more detail. Political leanings should be plotted in a 3D model (yes, I"m serious here), with power structure on the x axis (from anarchist to totalitarian), economic views on the y axis (from socialist to capitalist - I'm talking 100% extremes of each), and moral views on the x axis (from conservative to progressive).

In that kind of model, anarchists fit, cause they are simply glued to the anarchist end of the x axis, and can then be divided into anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-communists, and everything else. What you guys are talking about in the horseshoe theory, is people that are pretty much glued to the totalitarian side of the x axis, where indeed it doesn't really matter anymore for the people in your (imaginary) state where you sit on the economic axis.

None of this has to do with Russia anymore, but if it's interesting it's interesting. ;)
Unfortunately we're arguing about politics and poetry, so we're never going to agree. We're also taking the thread increasingly off-topic, I can only imagine Raoul hasn't seen this yet or we'd have been moved to the Geopolitics thread in a second.
Pfft! Posts are moved in 3, 2, 1...
 
Last edited:
Russia surely doesn’t have a chance of full
Mobilisation. Their current employed military is suffering from low morale. It’s one thing to be a coward as a citizen and not rally against putin, it’s another to go to war for him.
 
Russia surely doesn’t have a chance of full
Mobilisation. Their current employed military is suffering from low morale. It’s one thing to be a coward as a citizen and not rally against putin, it’s another to go to war for him.
Especially it doesn't change much, because more soldiers don't really fix some of the most crucial problems - lack of good leadership (this is impossible to fix with unexperienced conscripts) and lack of logistics (this is caused by a lack of trucks etc, and only gets worse when more fighters have to be supplied).

Throwing more conscripts at this just results in a lot more dead Russians and only a few more Ukrainians. It would be much different if they had qualified commanders eagerly waiting for new soldiers to fill empty tanks etc, but that's just not the case for the Russians.
 
In fairness, generalisations are almost by definition lazy. By the that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t have a point. The problem is when someone characterises things like this as being a defining factor in the right/left extremities.

I think the idea of horseshoe theory itself does exactly what you say in your last sentence. It's not just lazy, but used as a way to dismiss some people's opinions. Like in this page for example, "oh look, AOC voted the same way as MTG, I knew deep down they're all the same". If you know a thing or two about these two women, you know how ridiculous that is. But now you have your excuse to ignore everything else about them because you've labelled as being pretty much the same.
 
This conversation reminds me of this:

The distinction between the "Left" and the "Right" right in global politics today is increasingly redundant. The dialectic has given rise to and been superceded by a new dialectic: Pro-Western vs. Anti-Western.

As this new paradigm has arisen, it has become apparent that the Pro-Western factions (or The Goodies, if you will) believe in free markets, the welfare state and liberal democracy, while the Anti-Western movements (let us say, The Baddies) put their faith in sociopathic hatred, mindless violence and psychotic outbursts of bloodcurdling horror.

To appreciate the magnitude of this tectonic upheaval in global politics, one must look back to the dominant political consensus of the Cold War era, when Left and Right moved in two distinct orbits but could put aside their differences and come together in the interests of liberal democracy if so required.

The Cold War Spectrum


The+Cold+War+Political+Scene.JPG

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, political thought has bashed itself inside out and disappeared up its own fundamentals, and now a coalition of Blairites, former Cold War liberals and Neoconservatives (or Us, if that would be easier) find themselves on the frontlines of a battle for the democratic future of the human species.

A significant portion of the former "Left", however, found itself with no outlet for their anti-democratic impulses, and soon found willing partners in fascist, anti-democratic movements. This motley crew of Islamists, Stalinists and nasty Tories (Them seems apt) squat at the opposite end of the new political spectrum, where their ferocious hatred burns remorseless in the eternal night of their fat, black totalitarian hearts.

The Modern Political Landscape

The+Post+Left+Political+Scene.JPG


At first glance, this political labyrinth is a minefield of pitfalls and mantraps, but with the correct ideological maps, torches and crampons it is possible to safely navigate its swift, often treacherous waters.

What cleaves the mere Pro-Western left (Our political allies, if you will) from Muscular Liberalism (Me and my mates) who stand steadfast in the face of this looming menace is the willingness to intervene militarily to protect our values. This "Bright line" neatly demarcates the Muscular Liberal from the merely tepid Pro-Westerner in the new political landscape, and is depicted on the right.

It is only when all of these elements are combined that we can begin to make sense of the threat we face, and the proper position of Decency in this era-defining existential struggle for humanity.

The Muscular Liberal In a Post-Left World

Compare+And+Contrast.jpeg


I think it is clear where the Muscular Liberal stands in this fight - proud, upright and unafraid to raise his head, spit in the eye of the enemy and say I will not be beaten, sucked in or jerked around by Fascists!

Our faith in liberal democracy is a mighty weapon, and we must use it to draw a line in the sand against anti-liberal religious chauvanists. The hand of fate has fallen into our laps, and we refuse to spend the Greatest Intellectual Struggle of Our Time tucked out of sight or stuck in the rear.

Thank you for your time.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.ie/2008_03_01_archive.html

(A parody on this - https://greatersurbiton.wordpress.c...eft-vs-right-but-pro-western-vs-anti-western/)
 
There's been less reporting lately (to my knowledge anyway) as to what the sanctions are doing to Russia's economy. How bad is it at the moment? Signs of default? Shortages of basic needs?
 
This conversation reminds me of this:

The distinction between the "Left" and the "Right" right in global politics today is increasingly redundant. The dialectic has given rise to and been superceded by a new dialectic: Pro-Western vs. Anti-Western.

As this new paradigm has arisen, it has become apparent that the Pro-Western factions (or The Goodies, if you will) believe in free markets, the welfare state and liberal democracy, while the Anti-Western movements (let us say, The Baddies) put their faith in sociopathic hatred, mindless violence and psychotic outbursts of bloodcurdling horror.

To appreciate the magnitude of this tectonic upheaval in global politics, one must look back to the dominant political consensus of the Cold War era, when Left and Right moved in two distinct orbits but could put aside their differences and come together in the interests of liberal democracy if so required.

The Cold War Spectrum


The+Cold+War+Political+Scene.JPG

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, political thought has bashed itself inside out and disappeared up its own fundamentals, and now a coalition of Blairites, former Cold War liberals and Neoconservatives (or Us, if that would be easier) find themselves on the frontlines of a battle for the democratic future of the human species.

A significant portion of the former "Left", however, found itself with no outlet for their anti-democratic impulses, and soon found willing partners in fascist, anti-democratic movements. This motley crew of Islamists, Stalinists and nasty Tories (Them seems apt) squat at the opposite end of the new political spectrum, where their ferocious hatred burns remorseless in the eternal night of their fat, black totalitarian hearts.

The Modern Political Landscape

The+Post+Left+Political+Scene.JPG


At first glance, this political labyrinth is a minefield of pitfalls and mantraps, but with the correct ideological maps, torches and crampons it is possible to safely navigate its swift, often treacherous waters.

What cleaves the mere Pro-Western left (Our political allies, if you will) from Muscular Liberalism (Me and my mates) who stand steadfast in the face of this looming menace is the willingness to intervene militarily to protect our values. This "Bright line" neatly demarcates the Muscular Liberal from the merely tepid Pro-Westerner in the new political landscape, and is depicted on the right.

It is only when all of these elements are combined that we can begin to make sense of the threat we face, and the proper position of Decency in this era-defining existential struggle for humanity.

The Muscular Liberal In a Post-Left World

Compare+And+Contrast.jpeg


I think it is clear where the Muscular Liberal stands in this fight - proud, upright and unafraid to raise his head, spit in the eye of the enemy and say I will not be beaten, sucked in or jerked around by Fascists!

Our faith in liberal democracy is a mighty weapon, and we must use it to draw a line in the sand against anti-liberal religious chauvanists. The hand of fate has fallen into our laps, and we refuse to spend the Greatest Intellectual Struggle of Our Time tucked out of sight or stuck in the rear.

Thank you for your time.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.ie/2008_03_01_archive.html

(A parody on this - https://greatersurbiton.wordpress.c...eft-vs-right-but-pro-western-vs-anti-western/)
:lol:
 
This conversation reminds me of this:

The distinction between the "Left" and the "Right" right in global politics today is increasingly redundant. The dialectic has given rise to and been superceded by a new dialectic: Pro-Western vs. Anti-Western.

As this new paradigm has arisen, it has become apparent that the Pro-Western factions (or The Goodies, if you will) believe in free markets, the welfare state and liberal democracy, while the Anti-Western movements (let us say, The Baddies) put their faith in sociopathic hatred, mindless violence and psychotic outbursts of bloodcurdling horror.

To appreciate the magnitude of this tectonic upheaval in global politics, one must look back to the dominant political consensus of the Cold War era, when Left and Right moved in two distinct orbits but could put aside their differences and come together in the interests of liberal democracy if so required.

The Cold War Spectrum


The+Cold+War+Political+Scene.JPG

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, however, political thought has bashed itself inside out and disappeared up its own fundamentals, and now a coalition of Blairites, former Cold War liberals and Neoconservatives (or Us, if that would be easier) find themselves on the frontlines of a battle for the democratic future of the human species.

A significant portion of the former "Left", however, found itself with no outlet for their anti-democratic impulses, and soon found willing partners in fascist, anti-democratic movements. This motley crew of Islamists, Stalinists and nasty Tories (Them seems apt) squat at the opposite end of the new political spectrum, where their ferocious hatred burns remorseless in the eternal night of their fat, black totalitarian hearts.

The Modern Political Landscape

The+Post+Left+Political+Scene.JPG


At first glance, this political labyrinth is a minefield of pitfalls and mantraps, but with the correct ideological maps, torches and crampons it is possible to safely navigate its swift, often treacherous waters.

What cleaves the mere Pro-Western left (Our political allies, if you will) from Muscular Liberalism (Me and my mates) who stand steadfast in the face of this looming menace is the willingness to intervene militarily to protect our values. This "Bright line" neatly demarcates the Muscular Liberal from the merely tepid Pro-Westerner in the new political landscape, and is depicted on the right.

It is only when all of these elements are combined that we can begin to make sense of the threat we face, and the proper position of Decency in this era-defining existential struggle for humanity.

The Muscular Liberal In a Post-Left World

Compare+And+Contrast.jpeg


I think it is clear where the Muscular Liberal stands in this fight - proud, upright and unafraid to raise his head, spit in the eye of the enemy and say I will not be beaten, sucked in or jerked around by Fascists!

Our faith in liberal democracy is a mighty weapon, and we must use it to draw a line in the sand against anti-liberal religious chauvanists. The hand of fate has fallen into our laps, and we refuse to spend the Greatest Intellectual Struggle of Our Time tucked out of sight or stuck in the rear.

Thank you for your time.

http://decentpedia.blogspot.ie/2008_03_01_archive.html

(A parody on this - https://greatersurbiton.wordpress.c...eft-vs-right-but-pro-western-vs-anti-western/)
I'm disappointed I didn't see where this was going until the end :lol:
 
For the sake of bringing the conversation back on the topic of that specific vote.

I guess the argument would be that frozen assets aren't forfeited, and can be again accessed by sanctioned parties if the sanctions are later removed.

But obviously that defense seems very out of character for her. If someone introduced a bill "urging the president to seize assets of US billionaires to pay off student loans" would she vote against it and claim that it would be urging the president to violate 4th amendment rights of billionaires?

I just say that using the 4th Amendment is a really poor excuse. We are in a situation of extraordinary circumstances and thus we must use extraordinary measures to fight the enemy. Even though there is no official declaration of war between the US and Russia, the Kremlin is de facto at an open war against democracy.

If Westminster managed to push the envelope far enough that Roman has to sell Chelsea, then there should be no problem at pushing the envelope further when it comes to US-based assets that belong to a bunch of rich guys who chose to kis Putin's ass.
 
There's been less reporting lately (to my knowledge anyway) as to what the sanctions are doing to Russia's economy. How bad is it at the moment? Signs of default? Shortages of basic needs?

Doing sweet feck all currently, because oil, gas and high reserves.

Economy is expected to tank later on this year and next year, but the initial shock and awe has failed. Whatever we're doing economically, it's taking too long to have an effect.

Lessons learnt.

P.S. I still can't believe we haven't cut Sberbank from SWIFT. What nonsense.
 
Doing sweet feck all currently, because oil, gas and high reserves.

Economy is expected to tank later on this year and next year, but the initial shock and awe has failed. Whatever we're doing economically, it's taking too long to have an effect.

Lessons learnt.

P.S. I still can't believe we haven't cut Sberbank from SWIFT. What nonsense.

The oligarchs probably felt the immediate hurt from the sanctions, but they're also the ones being killed off so I'm guessing any complaints leads to a bullet in the head. The public will slowly get more and more frustrated with the economy there but yeah, its slower than I expected.