this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
632 points (93.2% liked)
World News
32397 readers
1007 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's not just the US though. The European powers are far more firmly committed. It's not at all clear that the rest of NATO will simply walk away if/when the US does. Especially the former Soviet nations; this is not a fucking game to them. The loss of US support would be huge, but I don't see a universe in which the Europeans just roll over for Putin once the US loses interest.
So firmly committed that america had to blow up one of germany's pipelines? Are you having a fucking laugh?
Everyone I speak to, you know, normal people, thinks this is a fucking stupid distraction from domestic politics and the consistently declining standard of living we are seeing. America has ended european prosperity with this shit and it won't recover for 50 years. You think people here haven't noticed that?
USA invaded Ukraine? That's news to me
The US assisted in the 2014 fascist coup that led to the fascist transitionary government, the deployment of all the fascist militias to attacking the donbas, and the 8 year long civil war that led to Russia eventually invading.
Your mindset on this shit is that it began in 2022 which is false, the US has been stoking it since 8 years earlier. If you want we could go even further back though, Operation Aerodynamic was the US operation to fund, arm and support fascists in Ukraine in order to destabilise the soviet union. Absolutely none of this would be happening today without the US' historic support of fascists.
way more than that
america knew what they were doing in late 2000s when they started the ukraine into nato bullshit; a lot of important people, including some ghouls, said russia would see it as an existential threat. i mean, fuck, angela merkel was saying that back then
That's the same Angela Merkel that admitted the Minsk agreements weren't done in good faith, rather, they were just done to create time to build the Ukranian military.
From a far enough perspective this conflict goes back to like Napoleon. When was the first time a European power decided that they could definitely take control of Russia before winter?
Napoleon at first wanted to divide Europe with Russia, he did also think attacking it is bad idea. Several diplomatic fuckups and certain serial traitor* activity later it came to blows.
*Talleyrand. Biographers place quite a big role in sabotaging France and Russia agreement on him. It seems correct looking as how the European politics 200 years later are still largely based on the ones he took very active part in establishing. Also his life was wild, he served all French governments from Louis XVI to Charles X and betrayed every single one of them except Jacobins who didn't trusted him and kicked him out of France.
Good to know. Thank you for the information.
So USA took Crimea not Russia because their puppet president was overthrown in 2014?
Crimean independence goes as far back as the 1991 Soviet collapse. Acting like it is only a 2014 thing is also nonsense.
On Jan. 20, 1991, voters were asked whether they wanted the re-establishment of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. 94.3 percent or 1,343,825 of the 1,441,019 voters who cast ballots voted yes. (81.5% turnout)
In 1994 voters were asked whether they were in favour of greater autonomy within Ukraine, whether residents should have dual Russian and Ukrainian citizenship, and whether presidential decrees should have the status of laws. All three proposals were approved. The worst of them being 77% saying Yes.
In 2014 they conducted a referendum asked voters whether they wanted to rejoin Russia as a federal subject, or if they wanted to restore the 1992 Crimean constitution and Crimea's status as a part of Ukraine. It had 89% voter turnout and 97% said yes.
If liberals care so much about democracy, and what people actually want, liberals should also care about the fact it is clearly something Crimeans wanted. The "taking of Crimea" was a referendum vote, and very little else. The way liberals always talk of it as an invasion is incorrect, in particular because Russia already ran the port, and already ran the military checkpoints into and out of the region. They were already there.
No, that is a complete strawman of your own fabrication.
No it was... you know... the thing
Ah, the completely made up thing. Yes, that makes perfect sense in your imaginary world.
People like Merkel didn't exactly think about long-term prosperity, given their climate policies. Energy shocks would've been, I assume, much stronger if they only started to happen in the 30s. The economic consequences (energy inflation, supply chain crisis) were not considered, although people have warned. Some acted (I think fennoscandic countries implemented effective heating regimes in the early 10s already for example), but many didn't learn from the 1970s energy shock caused by energy dependency on incompatible political systems and Russia's disorganisation of representation in the 2000s. Sanctions/disentanglement would've been necessary in the 2000s when Russia became centered around Putin.
SOL is high enough to defend against fascism. Don't fall for the propaganda of imperialists.
This war is so bad already, but it could be much worse (even with MAD).
This is nonsense from an american perpsective.
The reality here is that america is not a friend of europe. Those european leaders were pursuing what was best for europe, and america saw that as moving away from it.
Thus america set out to destabilise europe with exactly the same mindset it used in the middle east, and it has succeeded. As a result of blowing up pipelines and starting wars it has forced europe into vassalisation by way of creating energy dependence on it instead of itself or anyone else.
You act like what's best for america is best for europeans because you think everyone in the world is your vassal to be directed. You need to piss off and focus on yourselves and stop intefering with everyone else in the world. Everywhere the US pokes its nose into ends up worse off than it did before.
And the EU even recognises this, it understands it has been vassalised now and is working on resolving it.
They've completely fucked us over. And if you speak to anyone on the street here, taxi drivers, etc, you'd hear the same thing over and over again, Americans aren't viewed as our friends anymore, they did this shit to us and a lot of people know it.
I don't know why people keep thinking America is anything other than a paritcularly traitorous viper after the way we've treated literally every ally ever for centuries. Like at some point someone must have noticed a pattern.
Imperialist guilt is not going to solve the anti-imperialist struggles.
At this point it's like the fable of frog and scorpion (frogs should know that scorpion can remain submerged up to 48 hours).
Open circulatory system gang stay wining.
I think that's mostly ideological. War is something that exists within the Liberal world view, but obstacles to unlimited growth of profits don't. They can reckon with geopolitical conflicts but global warming does the same thing to them that trying to unlock your dad's memories does if you're a bene gesserit.
Climate change isn't mitigated just by disorienting from economic growth since status quo is so bad already. Growth politics are insufficient - not building another refinery isn't enough to combat the fossil north. Many economies, including Germany's vehicle industry, need to be completely restructured and there it is just remotely interesting for climate change mitigation whether there's differential (non-fossil) growth.
I have to imagine direct intervention would've happened already if it was going to. Why let the Ukrainians get shoved into a meat grinder first? If you're America: it's good business and sells more guns. If you're actually reliant on the buffer zone then it's really not a game, as you say.
if all the US / EU weapon stockpiles get wiped out then the US makes a mint resupplying everyone for the next war, which will be with China using Taiwan as the proxy
Apparently you are completely unaware of the existence of nuclear weapons.
The US being unreliable is what will cause a full on EU army. Putin is on the EU's doorstep and former Soviet are in the EU. The EU can't ignore Putin's aggression.
I wish them all the best. Watching Europe absolutely eat shit and collapse trying to fight would be hilarious.
Notably - America will 100% hang them out to dry rather than committing significant forces.
Also, you know, the really painfully obvious thing - The only people who want Russia to attack Europe are the Baltics and some of the more unhinged right wing factions in Poland.
The EU basically have to do it if the US is going off into isolationism. Russia is a far away problem to the US, but not the EU.
If the first iteration of an EU army wasn't great, in anything serious, the UK's army would join forces with it.
Russia has shown itself willing to invade, but also not a fearsome force. So if it tries another former Soviet block country, it will be made to fail. With or without the US.
Pretty funny how you completely ignore all of the Russian Putin controlled talking heads who have threatened attacking Europe and the Batlics on a daily basis since Russia invaded Ukraine.
But "painfully obvious things" is definitely something you understand all about, huh?