It remains entirely the case that nothing the US says should be taken seriously. And of course this has been nothing but a bonanza for the American arms industry, who are making "profits" (read: tax dollar recycling) hand over fist thanks to US actions. And yes, Afghans continue to stave to death thanks to the US decimating their country.

And one way to help Ukrainians is precisely to get the US to fuck off out of world affairs. There is literally no better possible thing to do at this point.

--

I wonder who here thinks that Putin has been responsible for more mass slaughter than say, Biden or Obama. Because they would be objectively wrong.

...not sending $33b in blood money, say?

Do you really find this so hard?

You are being obtuse, you remember what I was asking don’t you.

What is the alternative? ( to US/EU hegemony). That is the question I was asking.

Well?

What is the alternative? ( to US/EU hegemony). That is the question I was asking. — Punshhh

A multipolar world, where each "pole" minds its own business to a degree (hopefully). Less globalisation, more localisation.

The world is tired of us, sanctimonious yet corrupt, powerful yet degenerate Westeners. It is ready for other overloards.

Of course, we could mind our own business. There is a lot to say about fixing the place where you live, and not thousands of miles away. The famed "white man's burden" can be carried by someone else.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10762143/Ukraine-war-Russian-state-TV-says-nuclear-strike-probable-losing.html — neomac

Either we lose in Ukraine, or the Third World War starts. I think World War Three is more realistic, knowing us, knowing our leader. — Margarita Simonyan

Then impeach or replace — or at least pressure or talk to — your leader. Not just de-Nazification of the Donbas, but world war 3 (de-humanification of the world)?

We will go to heaven, while they will simply croak... — Margarita Simonyan

And that could explain the Fermi conundrum just like that. :pray: :ok: Should anyone be observing us, then they're staying way off our radar.

Then again, Margarita Simonyan may just be parroting what Kremlin wants her to. Threat-propagation.

I have zero moral judgement about Ukrainians murdering, in whatever way they see fit, Russian aggressors. — StreetlightX

Others prefer differently. (But your apathy is noted. :up:)

All of which is to say the you have a strong narrative you seem quite convinced of. It seems well researched and knowledgeable (though I wouldn't really know).

Anyone thinking it's therefore the only possible narrative is either struggling with their ego or their imagination.

No one need think of a counterfactual. If I'm repeatedly punching you in the face and you ask me to stop, it is not a reasonable counter-argument for me to say "well, what exactly do you think should happen instead?"

The fact that American (and European) institutions are making millions out of the prolonging of this war and the ensuing reconstruction loans is disgusting and ought to stop. I don't need to think of what should be done instead in order to make that point. I imagine that what should be done is one of the literally dozens of other strategies that other experts are considering, which is why there's not one united opinion about everything.

Again, I'm struggling to see what people don't understand about this. If my tailor makes a suit I don't like, I ask him to make a better one, he doesn't say "well, you make it then!" Our governments and institutions are enacting a plan I don't like (for what should be blindingly obvious reasons - profiting from war and misery is disgraceful). So I say I don't like it. I don't expect to have to come up with the alternative myself, that's not my job.

Some argue that they've come up with the only strategy that will work and so I should not complain, but that doesn't follow at all. I can't possibly know if they've come up with the only strategy possible (as previously explained, it's not my job), so I can either trust them (and keep quiet), or tell them I don't like it. The latter is obviously the better course of action in the circumstances (they neither deserve, nor have earned my trust and erring on the side of caution as well as past evidence seems reasonable).

What I'm interested in here is why everybody has taken this (to me) completely absurd line of simply assuming everything the government says and does is, this time, completely sensible and the only good choice, despite the fact that we've been subjected to exactly the same media manipulation, lies, and blatant profiteering that has been the hallmark of literally all the other occasions when corporation and governments have screwed the working class to further engorge themselves. We're living in the wreckage of capitalism's nightmare on a world rapidly becoming uninhabitable as a result of this exact level of profiteering, and yet there's still a crowd of flag-waivers cheering them on. Baffling.

What do you guys think of the escalation of nuclear threats from Russia?

Initially, Russia must have known it faced military calamity if other nations intervened directly in Ukraine. It effectively used nuclear threats to deter this. But, it did not include mere armament in it's threat: perhaps it feared the west would arm Ukraine anyway.

But now, Russia must realize that any kind of victory might be impossible if arms continue to follow more or less freely into Ukraine. And so, it has extended it's nuclear threats to include armament.

First, I think it is important to note that there is a subtle but important difference between warning against something an adversary has not yet done, versus warning against something an adversary is currently doing. In the latter case, if the adversary continues to do it, there is still room to manouver: you can issue more furious threats, and maintain some credibility. Whereas in the first case, if you draw the line first, then the adversary crosses it anyway, more threats strike of impotence: the choice becomes escalation or humiliation.

Second, what is the rational response to such threats? The stakes seem excessively high: is it rational to back down in the face of such threats, and leave Ukraine to it's fate? After all, MAD only works with rational actors, this is far from guaranteed when the decision maker is an (aging, deeply immoral) individual. For such an individual, Armageddon, or the risk of such, might indeed seen preferable to worldwide humiliation.

But on the other side, if we back down, then we immediately enter a world where every nuclear power may leverage their nukes for potentially unlimited strategic gain. The world would enter a new, even more dangerous and destabilized phase, one in which the US and the west's relative strategic power is vastly diminished: the latter alone makes this choice untenable to Western policymakers.

So then, how to respond? It is an uncomfortable dilemma.

one in which the US and the west's relative strategic power is vastly diminished — hypericin

Good.

The West acts with impunity, destroying democracies and assassinating world leaders all over the globe, while supporting dictators and mass murderers on the regular, and now someone who isn't them does it, and all of a sudden the worry is that they no longer have exclusive dominion over imposing their murderous will across the planet. Let them fucking burn.

In any case what concerns me is not who rules but how any such rule is excercised. If we can't get past the reign of capital which continues to spread like a cancer across the globe, it won't matter one bit what the post West hegemony looks like.

What is the alternative? ( to US/EU hegemony). That is the question I was asking.

Well? — Punshhh

I don't know. But the thing about mass murderers is that usually people don't ask "what is the alternative to mass murder hmmmmmm???". It is literally: not that. And considering the US has been the number one exporter of democricide across the globe, one would hope for a more fair and just world than this fucking mess would emerge. It may very well not. But to fall back on a dearth of imagination and accept the oceans of blood let loose by Western hegemony is both cowardice and complicity.

But all you're doing is posting weird stuff on a website. The real world continues on its own course regardless.

Everyone here is posting weird stuff on a website.

But we don't all claim to be heroic and virtuous for doing it.

Maybe you shouldn't project so much?

Maybe you shouldn't project so much? — StreetlightX

Maybe you should read more Nietzsche? Seriously.

Sorry I'm not a 13 year old boy.

Also I have read more Nietzsche than you will ever have in your life so there's also that.

You're a giant ball of ressentiment, tho.

Ressentiment is good.

Ressentiment is good. — StreetlightX

Good for what?

For anyone who isn't an aristocrat and a bootlicker for said aristocrats. Here is the bit where I tell you to read Fredric Jameson. Seriously.

For anyone who isn't an aristocrat and a bootlicker — StreetlightX

You're pickled in slave morality. That's why you're hyperbole gets so ridiculous.

The West acts with impunity, destroying democracies and assassinating world leaders all over the globe, while supporting dictators and mass murderers on the regular, and now someone who isn't them does it, — StreetlightX

Maybe Western Values have triumphed in the mind of President Putin? This is a ideological victory, surely? I do not see anyone celebrating though.

Putin wants his own regionally based, vertically run capitalism, operating by rules not commensurate with the Western neoliberalism. This is something the West cannot abide. And, short of using nukes, Russia will likely lose this contest in the long run. If anything, the Putin's values are triumphing in the West, considering that we are two years away from the neofascicts resuming power in the US, and that now it's effectively illegal to protest in the UK, among other symptoms.

Russia will likely lose this contest in the long run — StreetlightX

Looks like it, but I guess he has to try. Again I put forward my test:

(1) Could Russia's national interests be met by non-military means?

If not

(2) is Russia not justified in using military means?

I personally believe (1) could have been achieved. I am a pacifist I guess.

considering that we are two years away from the neofascicts resuming power in the US, and that now it's effectively illegal to protest in the UK.

Philosophically speaking, aren't all political stances equally valid, or can we rule out some, and on what basis?

Illegal to protest in the UK? I missed that, and also if you could explain Boris Johnsons' actions - I am a little behind the curve here.

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism[1] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy[2]

This is coming to America?

Illegal to protest in the UK? I missed that, and also if you could explain Boris Johnsons' actions - I am a little behind the curve here.

A bill has recently been passed in U.K. enabling any protest to be disbanded and deemed illegal if someone complains that it is to noisy. This provides a loophole by which any protestor could be convicted for illegal protest. Whether it will result in any change has yet to be established. There have been some very noisy protests in response, but no convictions for noisy protest, that I know of.

Streetlight is a far left, it can be a burden if taken to far.

ultra-nationalism. Check. Dictatorial power. See unitary theory of government and any time prez is backed by majority in both houses. Check. Regimentation of society. Check. Regimentation of the economy check. Not SMEs but anything beyond that is controlled by capital and its representative class. Which is why shit products (Tesla, Uber, Airbnb) become successful by absorbing losses for years and corner the market, instead of making a good product and actually sell it at the right price from the beginning.

So, yeah, it's already there.

I don't know.

Ahh, we’ll excuse me for sticking with US/EU hegemony then.

The veiled point I’m making is that this is probably as good as it gets. If the US is neutered on the world stage, it leaves a geopolitical vacuum. Who steps in to fill that vacuum?

China, (not my cup of tea)

Russia in alliance with other authoritarian states (prepare for global mafioso)

Competing corrupt right wing states (recipe for continued warring)

Also there would likely be a rapid erosion of democracy and human rights globally. Including in Blighty and Australia.

I’ll stick with what we have.

The veiled point I’m making is that this is probably as good as it gets. — Punshhh

Yes, this is what conservatives always believe. It is always wrong.

Yes, this is what conservatives always believe. It is always wrong.

Describe an alternative then.

The end of states and the reign of private property. But this is not quite the thread for that.

One might begin modestly by calling for the US to fuck right off outta Ukraine.

And to be fair, also asking Russia to fuck right off outta Ukraine.