The author sounds as if he was directly hired by the russians, lmao. His writing tone is "60s soviet propaganda" and the arguments are shallow and insubstantial, to say the least. upd. Just checked his other articles. Yup, dude is a russian shill.
Also, in Europe, it isn't a secret that Putin's violence in Syria was meant to create pressure on Europe and create a diversion from Ukraine, and it worked (wir schaffen das). When I read the title, I had a feeling somebody wanted to reframe that.
The author sounds as if he was directly hired by the russians, lmao. His writing tone is "60s soviet propaganda" and the arguments are shallow and insubstantial, to say the least. upd. Just checked his other articles. Yup, dude is a russian shill.
Also, in Europe, it isn't a secret that Putin's violence in Syria was meant to create pressure on Europe and create a diversion from Ukraine, and it worked (wir schaffen das). When I read the title, I had a feeling somebody wanted to reframe that.
This is why the author should have written the article during Obama's term, not now. Now Russia is responsible for pressuring the EU with migrants. However, not a word about it, which makes it anti-US propaganda.
The UK policy of deporting migrants to Rwanda is not too diffrent from Ibi Amin kicking Asians out of Uganda. Now Austria and Denmark came up with a plan to export migrant convicts to Kosovo, a country known for organ trafficking.
I’m not familiar with the author or their other articles so I can’t say whether they are or not but do we need to label all critics of western foreign policy Russian/CCP shills?
I often do the "background check" of the writers that smell propaganda/psyop. What did they write and when they wrote it. If you do just a quick check of what this guy wrote, you'll see he isn't just "a critic". His Ukraine-related articles are the real litmus test. He's literally spewing the russian propaganda nonsense.
I had a look, maybe, to me he just looks like bog-standard D.C libertarian think-tank type of guy. The Cato institute positions itself as libertarian non-interventionist (founded by American libertarians and a billionaire), so it would be consistent with their viewpoint. To me it seems more likely the shilling going on here is domestic rather than foreign.
The author sounds as if he was directly hired by the russians, lmao. His writing tone is "60s soviet propaganda" and the arguments are shallow and insubstantial, to say the least. upd. Just checked his other articles. Yup, dude is a russian shill.
And yet he's telling the truth.
US commercial and military interests led to the destabilisation of many republics and states across the world in the name of freedom and democracy. This is not a conspiracy theory. This is the bold and sad truth and the truth is that those wonderful values have been completely emptied from their meaning by the US capitalist elites.
This is a strange headline coming from the CATO institute of all people.
The Cato Institute is libertarian, so them being anti-interventionist shouldn't be surprising. The article was written by a "weekly columnist at Antiwar.com" according to the author's bio, which explains the tone of the headline.
Yes, Cato's branch of politics is in a coalition (a.k.a. the Republican party) with the neocons who like invading other countries, but that doesn't mean they share every single political view as neocons.
They get along very well on the economic issues that are Cato's top priority, but they have some differences on foreign policy.
The Cato Institute is libertarian, so them being anti-interventionist shouldn't be surprising. The article was written by a "weekly columnist at Antiwar.com" according to the author's bio, which explains the tone of the headline.
Yes, Cato's branch of politics is in a coalition (a.k.a. the Republican party) with the neocons who like invading other countries, but that doesn't mean they share every single political view as neocons. They get along very well on the economic issues that are Cato's top priority, but they have some differences on foreign policy.
That's what I meant. Cato has some members who are libertarian but I thought they do employ and propagate garden variety conservatism including neo-conservatives who would not call US interventionism "Regime Change Wars."
> and refuse to disclose their home country, in which case imprisoning them until they agree to play ball doesn't seem unreasonable.
How would this work in practice? Person comes from country A, claims he is from country B. You send him to country B, they can't find records of him and simply don't take him back. Now what?
I can recommend the podcast series blowback if anyone wants a deeper look into the knock-on effects of western intervention in the middle east and elsewhere. Also, the book the Jakarta method for a broader look.