As much as I am for not giving the bully what he wants

1) I see no harm in keeping dialogue and negotiations open as you beat him back. That doesn't mean you have to submit to cease fires or other short-term agreements that won't actually end hostilities but things will have to eventually end with talks with someone, Putin or whoever.

2) I think the chance of the Russian army rolling into any other country in the near term if the war were to end today are extremely low. I guess they could still go harass Georgia and Moldova if they wanted to but no chance they pick a fight with the Nordic countries in the near term. Yes, maybe ten years from now if they and the West don't learn their lessons now that could happen but I think there's enough time till that's a realistic threat to make the option no longer appetizing.

All that said, I'm mostly for not standing in the way of Ukraine's decisions as long as their ambitions remain within their own borders.

what are they?


I dont like what I am seing here. It looks as they were idiots.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progre...tates#Eugenics

no thats not today's Progressives and it has no link. the Progressives in Congress in USA are like Bernie Sanders and AOC and Ilhan Omar but a little bit more towards center (altho AOC is trending centrist every day).

those 3 are part of the Progressive caucus or whatever but they are slightly to the left extreme of the rest.

heres my understanding:

commies: want to end capitalism with revolution
socialists: want to end capitalism with revolution (but are different than commies for reasons out of scope here)
democratic socialists: want to end capitalism by voting
social democrats: want capitalism to be fixed with a little bit of socialism (like Scandinavia kinda)
liberals: basically fascists
centrists: definitely fascists
conservatives: super fascists
fascists: fascists

anyway, USA Progressives fall between liberals and Social Democrats. the more principled like AOC and Bernie could maybe possible pass for SocDems or even flirt with DemSoc.

1) Which line would you identify with?

2) If just ending cap in a specific country ... What mechanism would offer greater stability and happiness to those folks at large in that country that rid itself of cap?

3) If ending cap globally, what mechanism would offer stability and happiness to folks overall over cap?

The list is long and distinguished of the suffering cap has caused and the hatred towards how that **** works when you're on the short end of the stick is evident. But humans are evil and if you want to burn it all down due to envy, i get it, but what's the play if it ins't that?

well its not like the commies and socialits want revolution just bc they hate people and want to do a bunch of war. its bc over time it has become apparent that capitalists would rather murder millions that give up even .001% of their wealth and power. in fact, capitalists would rather lose money and resources than allow anyone to get a small piece even if they would gain more in the long run.

I dont really identify with any of them bc change is not possible and humans wont really exist in a few hundred years.

as for 2 and 3:

2 is not really possible. the Scando countries are still built on Imperialism and theft. you could say that Cuba is doing well tho, but you cant transplant its situation to many other countries and they are only doing well in comparison to it previous situation.

I cant answer 3.

I'm always interested in reading posts on this subject from those like microbet, Hue, Sabo and so forth because it's an absolute certainty that we ****ed some major stuff on how to create the perfect society. If there's an actual workable methodology out there that isn't just a tinkering of capitalism, I'd like to know about it. I lose interest and hope if it is just straight jealousy and hatred towards it with nothing to back it which I also understand.

some Marxists, well I think Marx himself actually, may not think we ****ed anything up but rather that this is just part of the path. like, society was feudal and then it became capitalist and that was an improvement. then it becomes communist bc there needs to be strong central enforcement of resources and finally it becomes truly enlightened socialism.

I take a more cynical view ofc.

but when I advocate for communism or do "apologia" for the Soviet Union its more that from an objective standpoint its not appreciably worse than the USA/UK/West in terms of murder, theft, and despair.

My last post for the night but I think my starting point for where things get a bit more difficult is devising a system that isn't just riding off the coattails of capitalism until society collapses - like just taking a big vacation until human civilazation ends ... which I guess is an option in this moment. I am curious where the true sustainability comes from that can legit be put into practice EVEN if you have a perfectly formed govt that can manage whatever is best without ever turning to ****.

Is Tucker Carlson the only mainstream antiwar voice?

The latest tangent on peace talks and feasibility of peace talks was moved here.

He is not an anti-war voice, he is an anti-involvement voice. An anti-war voice would be one who opposes the war and suggests ways to end it.

And even that is a generous take. The more realistic take is that he is wants to be seen as anti-establishment and offers a hot take for the views and engagement.

Case in point would be the the Minsk agreements. They were nothing else than limp-wristed excuses for western leaders to pretend there was not actually a war going in Ukraine.

Hes a lying propagandist who peddles misinformation for the establishment elites

Yes but didnt a group of Democrats write a letter stating that and were shut down immediately?

What still I do not understand Russia's threat is they will not stop at the Ukraine and European countries are the most immediate threat but the USA needs to contribute the bulk of the resources.

Under what is going on now every country should have no issue with the 2% requirement.

Incorrect.

I have listened to Putin's own words specifically on the region and the loss of the USSR. There is no 'imagination' in citing back ones own positions.


You are the one reading propaganda and assuming the propaganda and not Putins own stated views are what should be trusted.

Oh man the right really is able to get you to swallow their propaganda.

I have said it prior but I think in order, Washoe, lozen, Victor and then you are the most easily coopted by partisan games and messaging.


You also think the GOP is anti war because of 'words they say' for political impact in the moment, meaning you think that is not a position of convenience that would change instantly if their was a GOP Potus in charge beating a war drum they thought there was political benefit in supporting.


I am curious as most of Tucker Carlson schtick is to rail against the 'elites' in society and act as if he is a defender of the proletariat or 'every man'.

Do you swallow that up simply because he says it? Do you believe him?

No it's just that I don't really trust Putin. You do, for this particular report, but that's bc you are completely brainwashed by Western propaganda and lack any capacity for critical thinking.

Got some work to do Victor to pass me. I eat up all those right wing talking points especially Tucker's though I rarely watch his show unless he has a guest i am interested

Lets see my right wing talking points on Russia and Ukraine

Dems and GOP all love a good war they can agree to both spend on defence
Nato countries should be paying their fair share especially at this time when Russia has invaded Ukraine
If there was a peace deal on the table giving Russia Crimea and independance to the Donask Region and Ukraine agreed not to join Nato. It should have been taken

Oh yeah I felt safer under Obama and Trump than Sleepy Joe (right wing nickname)

if russia goes home, pretty sure the war ends.. pretty easy solution.

its not easy for the thousands dying every week.

Duh

Poland, already above target, is committed to 3% in 2023. The UK, also above target, aims to reach 3% in the late 2020s (the UK budget is much larger than Poland's and this will require a doubling of defence expenditure). France is roughly on target and increasing. Germany is severely below target (like 1.4%, with most of their air force mothballed until recently) and still trying to avoid military spending commitments, because they just don't get it, can't wake themselves up from the opium-dream of Brandt's Ostpolitik and can't understand that the Russians are not their friends. Italy is below target, has an unusually high proportion of spend on salaries rather than equipment and is proposing to spend more but will probably just spend more on salaries and nice uniforms. Belgium is hopelessly behind and won't even reach 1.54% till 2030. Lithuania, in the Baltics where they have a very real perception of the Russian threat, is already at 2.54%, but of course it's still a relatively small budget.

NATO's European strength resides mainly in France, the UK and Germany. (France and the UK being the only Tier 1 powers with nuclear weapons.) It is a worry that the Germans can't be bothered, but France and the UK among others contribute, for instance, to Baltic Air Policing, so the Baltic states are defended at all times by a roster of NATO fighters, meaning Putin simply can't go there. As we have lately found out, Putin's under-maintained and incompetently-manned planes can't even take off without having an engine fire and crashing into a nearby block of flats, so they definitely don't want to go near the Armee de l'Air or the RAF or any air force that has a clue what it's doing.

You Forgot Canada that is one of the worst countries for contributing its share to Nato. As well were down to 35,000 troops from 70,000

I'm Rubber
And your Glue
That is not me
But it is you.


I am the one listening to and believing Putin.
You are the one reading various online sources that tells you to not listen to Putin as they know better what Putin intends and means.

Do you believe Putin when he says he invaded to protect Russia from Nazis and to protect people in the disputed areas?

Or do you just believe what you want to believe?

As an analogy, I surely didn't believe Bush when he said Iraq was about WMD.

So I learned early in my life that leaders lie. And the esp lie about war. Seems you have not learned that even late in your life.