131–140 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Incoming new management works only because some willing to fight for greater good, safety... whatever establishment propagate. Not sure why you mention Sudetland?
It was an area they let Hitler effectively occupy without going to war. The Donetsk People's Republic of its day. Not fighting over that only delayed the main war a little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Don't underestimate the potential for a Russian dictator to cause suffering for his own people. Oh, I don't, believe me! But the thing is, Putin is already doing this . AIUI, he has been conscripting soldiers to fight in Ukraine for quite some time—to the point that he's had a hard time finding more conscripts already. I don't think there's much more he can do to force Russians onto the battlefield for him, whereve…
But he's been careful not to conscript from the big cities, for political reasons. He could raise a lot more conscripts... but there would be political consequences that he probably wouldn't like. So there are real constraints on what Putin is able (or at least willing) to do. Also, AIUI (and I could well be wrong), he at least says that he's not sending the conscripts to actually fight in Ukraine. Whether that's act…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power, then business as usual can continue. Beyond that broad agreement with US - EU alignment on foreign policy (NATO, Ukraine, Israel, Iran, China) must continue even under Trump. Trump is even seen as an opportunity to convince Europeans to increase its own "NATO compatible" military spen…
> the establishment position in the EU is that Trump is an outlier and that relations will normalize once he is removed from power Is it? This is not entirely clear. And if it seemed the case, it's increasingly not looking realistic. It won't fully go back to normal, now that it's clear that the US is one election away from not only backing away from commitments, but itself threatening invasion of supposed allies. A…
The one part that is brilliant maneuvering now is the EU spending increases on their own militaries: You keep the dependency, US military bases and surveillance installations, including US nuclear weapons on your soil (or even more bases like in the case of Greenland), you align on every military intervention under the sun (including Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and the greater Israel project) and you get a perfect pretext to do large scale austerity? It is quite incredible they were able to sell all that with a straight face to the europeans.
You know I would have asked the Europeans if they are okay with another migrant crisis as a result of another US intervention in the middle east, or if they think it's fair they have to spend on their own defense but don't get to seek diplomatic solutions to conflicts if that goes against US interests. The rules based order is dead, might is right has truly won and Europeans can lick the boot that crushes them is the truth.
All of that to say there is a reason EU is falling victim to far-right fascist parties if that's the only alternative to this clusterfuck that is afforded to them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would this make a difference though? The USA abandoned Europeans already before Trump. You only have to look at the polls. Thus, it makes sense to completely cut the ties, build up a nuclear arsenal and offset the mafia in Moscow. It makes no sense for Europeans to want to depend on the USA here; I have no idea who came up with that idea. Most likely the USA as it helped them project power. See how many bombing campa…
Of course. If the US builds military bases in your country, it profits THEM, not you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this was about humanity you would oppose suffering and violence on both sides and strive for a solution that involves all the humans in that region living in peace and harmony. Having extreme hatred for one side is exactly what perpetuates the cycle and doesn’t make you a good person.
I do not harbour hatred for any arbitrary collective group of humans, only for the actions of states and organisations which I perceive as the perpetrators and perpetuators of the cycles of violence. Israel has both the power and the means to stop this. But not the will. If they stopped expansionism, settling, and the embargo of Palestinian territories, violence would decrease over time. Occupying more land and razin…
Can you tell me by how many square miles Israel has expanded since 1970?
It actually shrank by more than 50%
They completely withdrew from Lebanon and were subsequently attacked by Hezbollah.
They withdrew from Gaza and the Gazans elected Hamas.
Just open Google maps and zoom out until you can see all the Muslim countries, Israel is barely a visible speck. It’s like 2% the size of Egypt and 1% the size of Iran - and that has not significantly changed in more than 50 years.
> Europeans embrace self-reliance and are clear-eyed about Donald Trump—but do not expect a permanent break from the US. That's a wrong analysis IMO. I think NATO as it was is completely dead. Europeans need a nuclear arsenal too (french and UK nukes are for those two countries only; that does not protect several hundred millions people). Russia is threatening escalation every day, including using nukes. Europeans ne…
[flagged]
Golly.
Europe got from the Islamic world in the crusades. Did it though? End barbarism?
I think we all know why. No need to say his name.
> Worryingly, European populists are espousing more assertively anti-Ukrainian views. Viktor Orban focused his unsuccessful election campaign to remain Hungarian prime minister on that theme. Meanwhile ECFR’s polling shows that voters of the far-right Freedom Party in Austria (FPÖ), the AfD in Germany, two far-right parties in Poland, and the governing and populist Progressive Bulgaria all see Ukraine as chiefly a “r…
"Russia is good, actually" is a hard sell to anyone who has been indoctrinated by a lifetime of Western Russophobia. Is I think what you meant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment is just asking for evidence. I am curious too.
> The comment is just asking for evidence. I am curious too. Given "before 2006" includes the entire history of Soviet espionage , that's kinda like demanding evidence that the sun rises in the East. It's very obvious that Soviet espionage would have supported far-left groups in the West, so if you want evidence you should probably do your own research. Now the post-Soviet period in that range, 1991-2005, is a differ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that Schrodinger Russia again: it is being stuck for years, unable to take some small village in Donetsk region, and simultaneously is a grave threat that looms over Europe, ready to quickly overrun their capital cities.
It’s not that Russia is strong because of its economy or its military. The point is that it is strong like a criminal, a mugger with a knife on the streets of Frankfurt. Or, if you will, a pigeon playing chess with you—it will scatter all the pieces and defecate on the board, then strut around like a winner with its chest puffed out. That’s Russia for you; it will simply use the dirtiest tactics that Europeans aren’t…
In 21st century warfare, what exactly is considered a 'dirty', and what is considered an 'honorable' tactic? Is there an objective definition?