Ah yes, the classic. Everybody who opposes american foreign policy is labeled. Tweet about opposing the genocide in gaza? Oh dont listen to him -- he is pro khamas. Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians? Oh pay no attention to him -- he is on the communist payroll.
I understand when leaders in politics or industry make these character-assasination attacks as they do it for their own interests (political or economical) but why do you do it? Why would normal people throw baseless accusations like this? What is your motivation? What skin do you have in this game? Is your argument really "Kim Dotcom is an agent because he is opposing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and he is against a forever war in Ukraine"?
He is presumably some guy that youve never met that happens to be fighting against the US government and its copyright laws so why are you making these comments? Are you so passionate about copyrights because you are an artist that has lost money because of mega? What motivates you?
>I understand when leaders in politics or industry make these character-assasination attacks as they do it for their own interests (political or economical) but why do you do it?
Thanks for articulating this, similar idea behind my sibling comment. Sadly i think the conclusion is that the vast majority of people are small minded, spiteful, and more or less accept whatever narrative the empire feeds them. Wish it wasn't like this
I agree that Kim Dotcom is not likely to be on Russia's payroll, but, as you said, he's simply small minded, spiteful, and more or less accept whatever narrative that empire feeds them.
Most likely he just hate US for a good reason and gonna support anything anti-US. In his particular case he probably just needs a country that not gonna extradite him to US no matter how bad the country is.
I just seriously doubt that likes of Dotcom, Musk or Trump need to be on Putin payroll. They just all have their own agenda to sell "strong russia, good putin" narrative.
tribalism. Probably on the democrat side and probably because Kim has been active on X. propaganda and its effects are literally that dumb and predictable (thus the NPC label).
Eh. I'm far-left and also think that the way he's been treated has been out-of-proportion to his actual crimes, and mostly predicated on his having pissed off powerful donors and not being Chinese. And I'd argue that there are plenty of people on the right who support him primarily because of his edgelord-iness, and not so much out of concern for an ever-expanding carceral state that deals out "justice" capriciously and disproportionately to whoever the oligarchs point at.
The concept itself ("being on the payroll") is archetypical head-in-the-sand American. All countries have intelligence assets on the payroll, and that absolutely includes the US, probably on the #1 spot.
Its like Americans complaining about how Chinese or Indian hit movies are covertly pro-Chinese or pro-Indian propaganda pieces. Ever heard of Hollywood?
> Tweet about opposing war in ukraine arguing that NATO is outdated and not in the interest of Ukrainians? Oh pay no attention to him -- he is on the communist payroll.
Hailing from a country that joined NATO in the 90s I wouldn't brand a person arguing this as being on communist payroll - just ignorant beyond measure.
Russia has been a consistently bad neighbour for decades now and I for one am happy that in my country it was the post-communists out of everyone who spearheaded the effort to have a deterrent in the form of NATO membership.
Finland and Sweden appear to agree, considering how they joined the alliance.
Why do people who oppose the war in Ukraine feel it's Ukraine's responsibility to roll over and die, instead of Russia's responsibility to turn around and go home?
This is usual tactics of Putins' shills. They all very much against war, but it's certainly must be stopped as is on the current frontline. So Ukraine not controlling part of it's territories and can't get into NATO, so Putin can prepare better for next invasion.
Unfortunately EU and US governments are not much better since they all put dumb limits on weapons usage and never supplied Ukraine enough weapons to actually get any superiority.
Is that truly what people who oppose the war believe? Or is that an easy strawman for you to dismiss the anti-war crowd in the eyes of those who dont know the history of this conflict?
What do people like you mean by "anti-war", exactly? Do you expect Ukraine to stop trying to liberate its people from a genocidal fascist invader who is holding them hostage? Do you want Ukraine to give up? Because, like, I suppose surrendering and being marched to the basement for your 9 grams of lead (that is, unless you accept being ethnically cleansed off your land and becoming a refugee) - well that also ends the war.
Do you deny that Ukraine has ethnic Russians in its territory? Do you deny that Ukraine has been crushing those Russians because of their dissent and their desire for self-determination?
I don’t expect them to stop fighting invaders. But what I do expect is to engage with their people and their neighbors on these issues in hopes of avoiding war and maintaining territorial integrity. They didn’t. Why I wonder?
Do you deny that Ukraine has ethnic Russians in its territory?
This is a lot like asking, in regard to events of August 1939 -- "Do you deny that Poland has ethnic Germans in it territory"?
Of course it did, and in fact (though this is largely forgotten) Poland was abusing its German population somewhat (far more than anything Ukraine has ever done to its Russian-speaking population). But Hitler's claims of the extent of such abuses were wildly exaggerated and overdrawn. Just as the depiction above of Ukraine "crushing those Russians because of their dissent" (without providing specifics) is wildly out of touch with reality.
And his stated rationale of the need to to start a full-scale war in order "protect" this population was a big lie of course, created specifically to appeal to people gullible enough to believe such things. Putin's claims of the need to "protect" the Russian-speaking population of Ukraine are equally baseless, and are designed with a similar intent in mind.
But what I do expect is to engage with their people and their neighbors on these issues in hopes of avoiding war and maintaining territorial integrity.
Ukraine did engage with Russia on the issues -- they just weren't willing to bend over and give Putin everything he wanted. More specifically it definitely sounds like you were expecting the Ukrainians to agree to permanent large-scale territorial concessions. Because since 2014, that's been the bare minimum of Russia's terms for "avoiding war".
Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border. I agree that there is lots of propaganda. And who knows if the elections in the autonomous regions were legit. But I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders.
If we dismiss everything the Russians say and accept everything said by those arming Ukraine there is no point for debate on this topic: we can only accept the mainstream media narrative that Ukraine must fight and we must support it endlessly.
All I can say is we had similar situations in the past and decades after the fact we realized we were lied to. Too bad millions died I guess?
> Why do we just dismiss what the Russians keep saying? They keep saying they don’t want US weapon systems on their border.
If you listen to Russians, then you're left with an impression that they are being surrounded by US weapons on their borders. If you look at the numbers, then that turns out to be a blatant misrepresentation of truth. For example, the US fielded ~5000 main battle tanks in Europe at the end of the Cold War. In 2013, the last 10 were removed. The opposite is true: post-Cold War era has brought rapid disarmament to Europe, which has emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine, because disarmament has limited how much and how quickly allies could help Ukraine.
> But I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders.
Ironically, this is "obvious" only if you accept the premise that Russia is determined to violate the security of its neighbors.
I wasn't responding to what "the Russians" where saying; but rather to what you were saying. Which unfortunately was just plainly illogical and counterfactual (on that specific point, at least).
But to address one aspect of what you're saying now:
I think it’s kind of obvious that the core Russian desire is to keep nato far from its borders.
This is broadly correct, and perfectly understandable.
However the war was never really about NATO expansion in the first place. And even if it were -- it definitely wasn't a rational response to that concern. And it certainly wasn't a response that the regime was "pushed" into taking.
The war was entirely optional for them - a failed gambit for enhanced "stature" and prestige on the global stage, basically[0]. Very much analogous to, and exactly as evil and stupid as the 2003 Iraq invasion, and supported by lies equally obvious and stupid. That unfortunately far too many otherwise perfectly decent and intelligent people were far to eager to believe.
If we dismiss everything the Russians say and accept everything said by those arming Ukraine there is no point for debate on this topic: we can only accept the mainstream media narrative that Ukraine must fight and we must support it endlessly.
I see plenty of room for debate on alternatives to the idea that Ukraine must keep fighting at the current pace until an unequivocal withdrawal (if that's what you mean by "supporting it endlessly"), and if you talk to Ukrainians directly you will very quickly find that they do as well.
However in order to even get there we first need to free ourselves of broken narratives in terms of what's actually been happening on the ground, and stop assuming that what the current regime says is interchangeable with what Russians in general say or think.
It would also be helpful to just completely forget about "mainstream media narratives", whatever those even supposedly are. When instead you can build your own far more reliable narratives from first principles (studying history, talking with people from there, or actually visiting the safer parts of the country if you like).
--
[0] Along with a desire on the part of the regime to promote and secure its longevity by keeping Ukraine out of Western economic and cultural influence, which it felt deeply threatened by, which is where the analogy breaks down somewhat (the US never had any specific obsession with Iraq in the way Putin has with Ukraine). And now that the initial gambit has clearly failed -- the war isn't about any of these initial motives; but rather a simple and desperate desire to save face, so that the regime can survive for a few more bloody years.
The main point being (as with the US in Iraq) its true aims were/are entirely different from its outwardly stated aims.
It's really upsetting to hear something so dehumanizing, have you ever interacted with russian people? would you say this about any other massive group of people?
Yeah but I don’t think that it is so simple. I would think nations are sufficiently deterred from establishing precedents which can later be used on them. Does Russia want to legitimize a recipe that could be used by Japan to snatch Russian territory? I don’t see them waving the Nuke card at all.
Look: the Russian invasion sucks for everybody involved and in particular the Russian and Ukrainian civilians. War might be good for many things but at the very least it is not obviously good for politics. I think it’s not controversial to expect that Russian leadership would have much preferred to develop influence through significant mutually beneficial relations with its neighbors.
What is to be done however if at some point a third party with infinite resources is those neighbors to an impasse on topics of national security to Russia? And after this those third parties start arming those neighbors with advanced weapon systems? Exactly what do you expect the US would do in a similar situation?
People wishing that the war would stop are not simply siding with an invader or a bully. They are being practical and recognizing a legitimate grievance of the Russians. Unless your position is that we live in a world where nations are unequal wrt security expectations you have to acknowledge the reality that the Russians have a legitimate claim to be upset about.
Why aren’t the other nations upset? There’s nothing legitimate about their grievances. Their super powers days are over, they just won’t believe it yet, and that delusion is costing Russia dearly. Instead of being a prosperous mid power, they insist on going for broke.
> How is it in the interest of the Ukrainians to trigger this invasion? Russia has always made it clear that Ukraine was a red line for what it sees as NATO encroachment on its borders.
This is completely false. "NATO encroachment" is a VERY recent talking point which is part of the neo-fascist narrative that Russia developed attempting to excuse its own inadequacies. You should google Foundations of Geopolitics which is basically a Russian version of Mein Kampf. This book is required reading for majority of Russian politicians, diplomats and high ranking military officials. Before Russia decided that it wanted to pursue a fascist state, NATO was not on its agenda at all.
Russia the fascist state? Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia, Canada or New Zealand.
In the U.K people are currently being jailed for years for mild social media posts. Hopefully the Axis of resistance will liberate the West. This American certainly hopes so.
>How dare you call Russia the fascist state when Russian citizens have greater free speech and expression rights than any E.U country, U.K, Australia and New Zealand.
So in Russia you can't support the country you're currently at war with. In the West you can't criticize a man who stabbed three children at a Taylor Swift concert.
Would you like to reconsider who has greater free speech rights?
American as apple pie. You're a hacker, see where the IP I'm commenting from is located. What hubris to think millions of Americans aren't completely fed up with this fascist empire. If you're still unsure, for 20 years now Congressional approval hasn't cracked 30%.
I'm sorry but the stats are readily available online. Far more people both in totality and per capita are arrested for saying things online in the non-U.S anglosphere than Russia.
Don't get me wrong, the United States wants the same for its citizens but our annoying Bill of Rights and Supreme Court have slowed the descent into tyranny.
Doesn’t even matter at this point? Do we have free speech when the boundaries of what is acceptable speech is defined by an oligarchy that is willing to suppress stories in all forms of media?
One thing seems certain to me: we were never free. Those in power will do as they please. Here or in Russia it’s all the same.
Right. Because we don’t have Snowden on the run. Because we don’t have a media empire that is suppressing every single Israeli war crime. Because we don’t have international bodies like the ICC being used against our enemies (eg Serbs) and being suppressed against our friends (eg Israelis).
Russia has its interests. It puts them above human rights. We have our interests and guess what we do the same.
Need I remind you that we fabricated reasons to invade Vietnam and Iraq and in the process we killed millions of civilians? Or do you need a list of all the governments we admit to have toppled over the years?
Our misguided belief that we occupy some moral high ground is objectively making the world a worse place. By our hands and by the fact that we are enabling other countries to act the same (eg Iran and Russia). How about instead we concretely define principles and standards that we apply uniformly? Why do we have to pretend like we are uniquely act with impunity on the global stage?
Russia is not a superpower if it can't even have air superiority on its own land and struggles to push beyond 150km from its own border, it's just a very nuclear armed nation thanks to the Soviet days.
As for the NATO enlargement narrative I don't know why people still try to push this when it's clear as water that Russia wants to annex more and more territory, even their conditions for ceasefire are mostly about Ukraine ceding territory to Russia.
So you believe Russia is simultaneously so weak that they can barely push out 150km beyond their borders and greedily eyeing their neighbors for annexation potential?
And are you saying NATO can’t be enlarging because Russia wants to annex territory so that means NATO hasn’t been enlarging?
So you believe Russia is simultaneously so weak that they can barely push out 150km beyond their borders and greedily eyeing their neighbors for annexation potential?
The way you speak about Russia is akin to the way an abuse victim would speak about their abuser - it's everyone's fault but Russia's that they invaded.
Also don't you dare make them lose their temper.
Russia isn't under threat from NATO, as it's a defensive alliance. They seem to understand that as well, as they pulled their air defense systems from the region bordering Finland.
> I think people dont realize that the Russians are a super power.
The soviet union was a super power. If anything people realised that Russia's supposed power is mainly posturing.
And it was high time for that. In the past some western governments attempted a policy of appeasement - all it achieved was emboldening Russia.
It's useful to compare Russia with other countries.
Russia pop 145 million. GDP 2.24 Trillion.
Brazil, pop 205 million, GDP 1.92 Trillion.
Brazil isn't anyone's idea of a super power. Difference is Russia has or had a lot of Soviet cold war era weapons and weapons manufacturing. With the emphasis on the increasingly had.
So yes you are right. And I agree about the wife beater logic.
I see you've never seen Estonia or Latvia on a map. Nor realize NATO is already there. Why have they not been invaded while since 2008, Georgia and Ukraine have? Total mystery.
Sure. Or world hunger. Or building more schools and infrastructure in the developing world. Or generally investing in making technology accessible to improve outcomes for people.
> I think people dont realize that the Russians are a super power.
Super power that cannot defend it's own borders during the hot war. I guess their superpower army too busy conquering Moon and Mars or far away galaxy.
And you know what's not happened when Ukraine started to capture Russia territory? Putin and his gang said nothing at all about nuclear weapons during last 10 days. Not even single hint even though he like to talk about them every time when his ass not in danger.
This is because they are criminals and bullies and these kind of people only understand force.
Good that Vietnamese did not realize US is a super power and will just nuclear bomb them when they get frustrated they are losing conventional war.
> A Ukrainian government that has refused to engage with its neighbor on topics that its neighbor claims are matters critical to its national security
If the "matters critical to its national security" involve unprovoked invading of other country, then it's good they don't care, even assuming your biased rhetoric has anything close to reality.
I forgot that Vietnam shares a border with the US, is very close to the US capital, and was in discussions with the US adversaries to stage their troops in Vietnamese territories.
Really? It’s absolutely not that Ukrainians are cooperating with western lunatics trying to undermine MAD by deploying nuclear capable weapon systems all over the Russian borders?
MAD prevented WW3. What do you think happens if the US thinks it can cause significantly more harm to China and Russia through first strikes?
Maybe you haven’t noticed recently how there already western weapon systems actively striking targets within Russia. Those same systems can deliver nuclear payloads.
So what your are saying is a falsehood based on the current realities on the ground.
I suppose any of the thousands of regular aircraft that Ukraine has "could" deliver a nuclear payload. But that would be a pretty stupid way to launch a first strike, and doesn't change the MAD equation in any way.
> if anything the story of Finland ascension into NATO supports the arguments that NATO is intentionally -- and aggressively -- pushing Russia to war
It's incredible the convoluted things people tell themselves to explain away the simple and obvious reality:
The only reason Finland and Sweden joined NATO was because Russia invaded Ukraine and started a genocide, while threatening Finland and Sweden with the same (and nukes).
> What would have been better for Ukraine? To find a way to make peace with Russia or to fight it for a decade? And please dont say this is for "democracy", "freedom", and "liberty".
The option is to let Russia freely commit genocide with rape, murder, and terrorism.
Only to then steer their target to the next country and do exactly the same.
I understand when leaders in politics or industry make these character-assasination attacks as they do it for their own interests (political or economical) but why do you do it? Why would normal people throw baseless accusations like this? What is your motivation? What skin do you have in this game? Is your argument really "Kim Dotcom is an agent because he is opposing the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians and he is against a forever war in Ukraine"?
He is presumably some guy that youve never met that happens to be fighting against the US government and its copyright laws so why are you making these comments? Are you so passionate about copyrights because you are an artist that has lost money because of mega? What motivates you?