277 posts shown.
bluemason3 said:If history has taught us anything, it's whether it's actually healthier to live under a small-time tyrant than some corporate alpha male overlord. 😁
Revenger20 said:When Mussolini took over, he became the blueprint for everyone wanting a powerhouse state—one that doesn't give a damn about democracy, just pure, raw power.
Maybe we Americans don't realize what kind of low-life politicians we keep voting for, but any nation with actual self-respect will see Putin’s potential success as a roadmap for rebuilding centralized state authority.
Kate Cook27 said:We're all just going to stop speaking Russian as a gesture of good faith.
bluemason3 said:It's a massive risk, which is why anyone with a shred of sanity—especially anyone in the West who isn't completely delusional—should want nothing but the worst for Putin and his crew. We need to back maximum aid for Ukraine. You can't give Putin an inch, not under any circumstances, not even when it comes to nuclear concerns.
Kate Cook27 said:Look, I don't care what happened 50 or 100 years ago—the Russian occupiers need to leave Ukraine. Period. I don't know if it'll actually happen, but I really hope it does. And of course, the Russian language should be abolished there. Moldovans exist today; they have people who identify as Moldovan, regardless of what happened in the past. Russians claim Ukrainians aren't a real people, but that’s just false. The Ukrainian flag will fly over Donetsk and Mariupol again 🙂.
Oh, and yeah—the only country that needs to change its borders is Russia. Every other nation has perfectly fine borders.
Lisa Patel4 said:Like I said, there were two referendums. The second one happened after the Belovezhskaya Pushcha meeting where the breakup of the union was actually settled.
No, it was because Khrushchev was playing big leader. Just as the USA had every right to wipe out any Red Army soldier in Cuba back then, I suppose Russians have every right to wipe out any NATO soldier in Ukraine. Only a fool would go provoking a nuclear power right on its doorstep. Honestly, there are lines you just don't cross. Ever.
The West shot itself in the foot. Instead of telling Ukraine to stay neutral and pushing them toward the EU using an Austrian-style model—effectively taking all the cards out of the Kremlin's hand and turning Ukraine into an economy more prosperous than Russia—they brought in a brain trust that voted to ban the Russian language. It’s pretty obvious that Americans are just a bunch of unintelligent cowboys.
gentlerider7 said:Honestly, it’s entirely possible that Russia's biggest win so far is just their propaganda machine, which somehow still manages to land perfectly—not just back in Russia itself, but across the whole "Global South" (think India, Africa, Latin America), even in the North America, and let's not forget those fringe parties over in the West and all those uneducated types everywhere else.
Terry Green3 said:Game over.
If Americans don't rise up against Putin and his whole Potemkin setup right now, they never will. Decades of lies and self-deception collapsed in just a few days. Those people who thought they could just leverage a fraction of resources—like using NATO to muscle into other countries—I guess they finally opened their eyes.
The USSR was actually ready to push back during Barbarossa, unlike Russia today. Someone mentioned this in another thread, but looking at Russia through the lens of WWI, it’s the same old story: the regime is back on its knees, ripe for a repeat of history.
bluemason3 said:Trumpism has basically proven that sliding straight into a disaster is entirely possible.
bluemason3 said:When it comes to America, despite all their imperialist nonsense, we’re incredibly lucky that this country—with its massive capacity, unique blend of natural resources, tech, talent, sheer scale, secure geography, and connectivity—was built and maintained on democratic foundations.
They have enough potential to break international rules three times harder than China and thirty times harder than Russia, acting way more aggressive than they actually are. If they were a classic quasi-empire instead of a modern one, they could get away with much more, but thankfully, a solid internal democracy keeps them in check.
Until things settle down in Russia and China, I have zero interest in their "multipolar world"—which is really just a fancy phrase used to mask some pretty shady maneuvering.
They have at least 3x the potential of China and 30x the potential of Russia to trample international rules and act way more aggressive than they currently are—more like a classic empire rather than a modern quasi-empire—but luckily, their developed internal democracy keeps them in check.
Until things settle down in Russia and China, I don't want their version of a "multipolar world," which is really just a fancy phrase used to hide shady power plays.
bluemason3 said:There’s no such thing as a perfect, flawless system. Distrust in democracy is really just a byproduct of:
- inconsistency
- the kind of relativistic propaganda we've been talking about
- having too much prosperity for too long, which makes people forget how much worse the alternatives actually are
Democracy and the "Western system" aren't facing any unique crisis compared to any other era in history.
bluemason3 said:Modern international relations were shaped—or at least solidified—by WWII. There’s really no point in digging up the past to argue about Napoleon or the Russian Tsars.
First off, when it comes to trampling on the principle of territorial integrity established after WWII, we aren't talking about Cuba, Iraq, or Afghanistan. We're talking about Mexico.
Legally speaking, the U.S. might have actually stepped in the mud here, even if the goal was recognizing self-determination rather than foreign conquest.
Then you have other categories that are arguably worse because they involve outright annexation (Crimea), and now we're seeing a blatant denial of statehood and nationality for the leader of a classic military invasion unlike anything we've seen in ages.
You could compare those earlier Russian interventions to American ones, but you certainly can't compare this current situation to them. Anything that happened before WWII is essentially irrelevant now.
gentlerider7 said:Russian propaganda is basically weaponizing nihilism. They want to make sure nothing feels certain anymore, making everyone feel like they just have their own little version of the truth. And you know what the crazy part is? The fact that Russian propaganda is so inconsistent and full of contradictions is actually its biggest strength. It lets them cast such a wide net to snag all sorts of different crowds. You've got the leftists claiming it's all NATO and the West's fault, while the right-wingers are over there shouting about how Zelenskyy is a Jew or how Europe is going soft and "gay." It's pure chaos. They scare one group with nuclear threats—like, "Oh man, he's losing it, let's just give him Ukraine so he calms down"—and then they squeeze another group by threatening to cut off the gas supply. It's a mess, really.
boldotter2 said:I feel like the current crisis in Europe is mostly just speculative. It’s definitely not harmless—I mean, the 2008 crash had some pretty similar roots—but once that speculative bubble finally pops, I think the market will just correct itself. It might be a painful process, maybe even an expensive one, but things should head back to normal eventually.
On the flip side, the situation over in Russia is a totally different beast because it's systemic. The whole system is basically designed to create and push its own crises. Honestly, without changing the entire structure, I don't see much progress happening.
William Anderson5 said:That isn't the only issue. The real problem is that most laypeople simply don't grasp the laws of history or geopolitics. Most people lack the historical perspective required to understand how to navigate geopolitical shifts. There hasn't been enough effort to explain that the world Russia is trying to build would be far worse than the one we currently inhabit. People don't truly comprehend what the collapse of NATO or the European Union would actually entail, nor do they have any inkling of the domino effect that would follow. Most can't draw parallels to past eras to recognize the looming dangers. Very few people know anything about Europe in the interwar period or how the world stumbled into WW2, so they can't see the patterns necessary to prevent a repeat today. To the average person, these concepts—much like the war in Ukraine—remain abstract until it’s already too late.
In my view, that's the most dangerous part of all...
hollowowl15 said:Žižek wrote a solid piece about these "pacifists," drawing lines between the new right wing and Putin....As the main player in this cultural war, the Kremlin has used its proxies to intervene not just in Mexico, but also in Canada—warning them not to even dream about joining NATO. Unfortunately, Western leftists and pacifists completely miss the geopolitical dimension of Putin's "denazification" project. As Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the British Democratic Party, recently complained: "Sending weapons to Ukraine won't bring a solution; it will only prolong this war. The War in Ukraine could drag on for years."
This whole stance basically implies that Western governments should just let Russia occupy Ukraine. It’s a bizarre kind of "pacifism"—one that puts pressure on the victim (telling them they shouldn't defend themselves too vigorously) and their supporters (telling them they shouldn't help the victim much), rather than putting pressure on the aggressor.
Western "pacifists" are demanding that we "de-demonize" Putin. Their logic? Since negotiations will have to happen sooner or later, we ought to treat him like a future partner. Honestly, it should be the exact opposite: the attack on Ukraine forces us to re-demonize Putin—not necessarily as an individual, but as the face of a dangerous geopolitical and ideological project.
Anthony Hill5 said:Well, perhaps by pointing to the assassination of journalists, the systematic dismantling of the opposition, the shuttering of NGOs, those draconian foreign agent laws, and the relentless persecution and imprisonment of independent media outlets, among many other things...
Anthony Hill5 said:You must have been asleep for the last twenty years if you actually believe that.
Anthony Hill5 said:And what, in your estimation, would actually suffice?
Richard Wilson4 said:Look, back in the 90s, the USA basically stopped Russia from falling apart, and all that did was turn Russia into an even worse autocracy.