This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What is so wrong about caring about one's own interests, as opposed to the interests of others? The 'elites' are the ones going out and randomly, incompetently wrecking various countries or behaving incredibly recklessly. Standing aside while others fight is sound policy. We should not get involved in other people's problems. Firstly, it's expensive and makes enemies. Secondly, we don't necessarily understand what's going on and can't necessarily fix it. Thirdly, it benefits special interests and socializes losses. Everyone is poorer due to energy shortages or debt incurred by these wars - the benefits go to military contractors, bureaucracies, favoured NGOs and PMCs.
Just consider the last 20 years of military adventurism. What did we get? A pro-Iranian (wrecked) Iraq, wrecked Libya, wrecked Syria, wrecked Afghanistan. All this came with a huge price tag and a long list of new enemies. The military establishment is not very smart, nor are they good at winning. They are very good at wrecking and lying.
This is what happens when we listen to the 'moral high ground, think of the civil society' camp. We get wrecked countries and 12-figure bills. Why should Ukraine be any different? Long, expensive conflict which doesn't improve our position at all. The realist school has warned and warned that getting involved in Ukraine was a bad idea, that it would make the Russians very angry, that they'd rather wreck the country than let it fall into our hands. They've been totally vindicated. Russia is wrecking Ukraine, missile by missile and refugee by refugee.
How hard would it be to... do nothing? If we had done nothing for the last 20 years we'd be richer, safer and stronger.
People will go on and on about how we have to stand up and support the 'international rules based order' - the biggest crock of shit. What are the rules (is there any clear law anywhere)? Who wrote them? Who agreed to them? Apparently it's OK when we invade or bomb countries, yet it's illegal for Russia to invade its neighbours? This is arbitrary nonsense.
Let's support our interests, which are not present in Ukraine. There's nothing we need in Ukraine, there's no need to get hysterical about it. Ukraine is a core Russian interest and a peripheral interest for the West as a whole. Foreign policy should distinguish between core and peripheral interests.
No, it hasn't been. A lot of people demolished arguments of Mearsheimer. An example of critique:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=XXmwyyKcBLk
https://youtube.com/watch?v=wjU-ve4Pn4k
I won't be repeating them, as it's just exhausting.
That doesn't demolish anyone, they just repeat tired old myths like the 'security guarantees' that Ukraine was given in exchange for transferring nukes they didn't control (what is a permissive action link?) to Russia. People don't even bother looking at what the agreement says, they don't bother reading the wikipedia page, they just lie! Ukraine was not given any security guarantee:
Seeking security council action is meaningless if it's against a veto-power.
You get your arguments from youtubers like 'Spaghetti Kozak Media & Heavy Industries LLC', I get mine from published authors (who predicted this whole affair years in advance). These people don't understand Mearsheimer, I doubt they've read any of his work. They grossly mischaracterize what he's saying: 'Europe is a poker chip'. At no point did he say this, it doesn't even have any meaning! Is Kraut talking about France, Germany, the EU? Who knows! At no point do they even repeat Mearsheimer's thesis from directly relevant books like 'The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities'.
It's also deeply ironic for these people to cast themselves in the moral high ground over the cold realists when the idiotic, reflexive interventionism they support has gotten an enormous number of people killed.
Argument from Authority. I thought academics can be trusted, see where they lead us with lockdowns!
But Spaghetti Kozak Media demonstrated much closer knowledge of Ukrainian affairs than Mearsheimer did — as someone who comes from this part of the world I can attest to this. I watched Mearsheimer's debate with Sykorsky — the dude is just ignorant. He did not predict anything — in fact, he said Putin won't attack, because he would be too stupid otherwise.
I don't remember when the US intervened into the war directly? They follow the spirit and the letter of the Memorandum by "providing assistance to Ukraine", and Russia broke the memorandum.
In Russian and Ukrainian versions of the documents, it is not "assurances", but "guarantees":
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/United_Nations_Treaty_Collection._Volume_3007._I-52241.pdf
page 7: Меморандум о гарантиях. Signed by American and British representatives as well. So please, study the matter a bit more, before opining. And do not trust some academics, they spew garbage, be it Fauci or Mearsheimer.
There's a reason people publish books (with footnotes and references) and don't just hold debates. Books and articles let people develop nuanced ideas over text, thinking things through carefully. Mearsheimer's record on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria is impressive. Furthermore, he says that it would be hard for Russia to conquer Ukraine:
https://www.mearsheimer.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Why-the-Ukraine-Crisis-Is.pdf
Mearsheimer predicted exactly what happened, he said that Russia lacked the power to conquer Ukraine. He said that, if the current Western policy continued, Ukraine would be devastated, Russia-West relations would be more hostile (which clearly implies some kind of invasion or use of force). 100% correct and he was writing in 2014. And you say he's ignorant?
You first. Ukraine was not given a security guarantee. There's no debate about this, it's black and white. Read the very link you posted. Read it carefully, unlike the youtuber you cited who thought there was a security guarantee.
There was no security guarantee. And it has equal validity in all languages, linguistics are irrelevant.
Yep, page 7: Меморандум о гарантиях
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/гарантия
Now, in the articles it is not said that the US will intervene on behalf of Ukraine if it is attacked. It’s says about assistance. Which the US provided so far.
While Mearsheimer talks about NATO being a threat to Russia, I can't take him seriously. Here, read this, maybe you are unfamiliar with this concept:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destruction
He correctly predicted that Russia is a threat to Ukraine, but he incorrectly identified the reason for why it is, and thus his arguments do not hold. They are a threat because Putin, and a large part of Russian political class, views Russians and Ukrainians one people that should be reunited, Anschluss-style. NATO has no place in this picture, aside from being a potential deterrent.
No, he said "Putin is too smart to try that".
There's a distinction between a security guarantee and security assistance. You are saying assistance, assistance, assistance... I am saying that there was no guarantee, contra your youtuber. These are critical distinctions! These are the reasons we have books, papers, written by people who know a thing or two about what they're talking about as opposed to just regurgitating talking points. Mearsheimer knows things that youtubers do not - hence why he was right about Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Ukraine.
When and in what context? It's quite clear from the text that Mearsheimer writes that Putin might try to invade. Mearsheimer said that Putin lacks the power to conquer all of Ukraine, not that he wouldn't invade.
Again and again Mearsheimer states that Ukraine is a core strategic interest for Russia, that they'll withstand considerable suffering to ensure NATO does not have a presence there. It logically follows that Mearsheimer thinks that Russia would invade Ukraine, as I said above. For example, here's a quote:
If Mearsheimer said something like 'Putin would not invade with a goal to conquer and permanently annex all Ukraine' then that fits with the rest of what he's written and published. If he says 'Putin would not invade Ukraine in any circumstances' then that fits with what you're arguing about Mearsheimer being ignorant.
If this was the case, then Putin would've done something about it earlier and people would've written about it pre-2014. Where are the scholars talking about Putin's desire to conquer Ukraine pre-2008? You don't find it suspicious that the Russo-Georgian war happens immediately after the US says Ukraine and Georgia will join the alliance eventually? How convenient that Putin becomes a Russian pan-nationalist precisely when NATO enlargement gets closest to Russia.
Mearsheimer has demonstrated that he doesn't have expertise on Eastern Europe many times in his speeches and debates, there is no need to read all the corpus of a crank, it is enough just to listen to his speeches.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4
Like here he is denying that "Putin is bent on creating a greater Russia" (29 minute slide). Demonstrably false.
33 minute slide: he claims that the west's response "so far" is "doubling down". Now, it was 7 years ago. The US started to provide significant assistance to Ukraine, and sanctioned some Russians only after Malaysia airliner was being shot down by Russians (as confirmed by the International Court). How the West should have reacted? Especially, when Russia denied any involvement?
39 minute slide: he claims that Ukraine should guarantee language rights for minorities. Well, if Mearsheimer knew anything about Ukraine, he would have known about
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-truth-behind-ukraine-s-language-policy/
Kivalov-Kolesnichenko language law. Just a bunch of nonsense from an old crank.
No, why do you think that? He tried to pull Belarus and Ukraine into "Union State". It's a well-known fact, maybe not to you, or Mearsheimer.
As suspicious as when a robber tries to rob a bank the day before a new security measures are introduced. The bank security must have provoked him! Russia didn't wait 2008 to try to encroach on Crimea when Ukraine was under pro-Ru president:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Tuzla_Island_conflict
And he did say in his lecture:
So, I guess, a win for the US? As that's exactly what happened, that is true.
That literally proves his point, that Ukraine in 2014 was moving to suppress the Russian language and in 2018 they did do precisely that by repealing the law!
Do what Mearsheimer said this whole time and make it clear that Ukraine wasn't going to be part of NATO, sweep it under the carpet (like the enormous numbers of people dying in Yemen for example). That would have avoided this whole war. But no, they doubled down instead providing more arms, more NATO integration, more training and so on. Besides, when the US shoots down an airliner, nobody gets sanctioned. Accidents happen.
Not with troops. Putin only started intervening overseas in 2008 and there's a clear reactive tendency. Georgia, 2008, right after NATO membership is promised in some future time, right after the emboldened Georgians go in on South Ossetia. Then in 2014, right after the pro-Russian Ukrainian government gets deposed. One tiny border dispute in 2003 does not an imperialist make.
So I was completely right! You didn't grasp the distinction in what Mearsheimer is saying, the difference between invasion and conquest. You don't know what you're talking about. You don't understand what Mearsheimer is talking about or you've been deliberately mischaracterizing his ideas.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Kraut in his 40 minute video makes a critique of realism but of 20th century variety not school of offensive realism to which Mearsheimer belongs to.
And it is 90 minutes btw
More options
Context Copy link
The general points are the same: ignoring agency of independent minor power (Poland, Ukraine, Baltic States etc.); hypoagency of Russia and hyperagency of the US; ignoring ideologies, political developments and personal attitudes of politicians and populations.
And it is easy demonstrable — Mearsheimer made laughable claims about Putin not being imperialist and not being driven by ideology (despite the latter comparing himself to Peter the Great, claiming that Ukraine is historically Russian, citing Ilyin — a Russian fascist philosopher, writing articles about Ukraine historically being part of Russia). But people still cite him, even after this year and a half. It's baffling.
EU, US and Russia can all end this war, Ukraine can't and it can't fight alone. That's the problem with being a minor power, you are not independent. And of course politicians aren't homo geopoliticus so rational models will not always work in real life.
Putin isn't an imperialist, he isn't based right winger or actually communist shill, he is cleptocrat who wants to stay in power, that's all. His Russian nationalist rhetoric coexist with his speeches about multinational Russian nation and how he is Dagestani, Chechen, Tatar. He talks about evil Lenin who created Ukraine and then praises Soviet Union, he calls maidan a coup but then recognizes supposedly illegitimate government. Putin's words contradict themselves every other week. Look at his actions, his revealed preferences and you will see that he cares about being Peter the Great only when he heeds popularity boost.
Real Russian nationalist fascist like Strelkov wouldn't stop at Crimea in 2014, wouldn't arrest all Russian nationalist organizations, wouldn't walk out of Kazakhstan, wouldn't propose the peace deal that was proposed in April. You can read Anatoly Karlin Twitter for more proofs in more details, like the size of military budget, non-committal atlitude to the supposed fight against evil nazi Ukraine and Satanist NATO. In Russia Russian nationalists that support the regime are generally laughed at for all the aforementioned reasons.
They can — just instead of sparsely populated Azov steppe battles will happen in Poltava (pop. 280k), or Zaporizhzhia proper (pop. around 700k). They repelled Russians from Kyiv back when American assistance was meager.
He is a kleptocrat, alright, but calling him non-ideological is just demonstrably false at this point. You could have had doubts back in 2012, not now. Karlin is just as delusional as ever, just instead of "Kiev will fall in 2 days" he swung in the opposite direction.
I lived in Russia for quite some time, I know Russian, so I think I have some understanding of what Russian nationalists really think. Are you Russian?
And Nazi Germany didn't go full war time economy until 1942.
People can be ideologically-driven psychopaths, and ineffective at the same time. And I assure you — if Strelkov came to power, economic efficiency would just drop. Because he would fire Nabiulina, actually competent banker, and would put someone like Glazyev in her stead, who is even less competent than Erdogan when it comes to monetary policy. But hey, at least he hates hohols.
Kremlins shifted their course to freezing the conflict at the approximately current borders after their failed push to Kiev that was meant to facilitate regime change. And without western assistance they would be successful as they were 9 years ago. And American assistance was not meager if you look at it in all years from 2014.
But policies of his government that consists from his cronies aren't ideological nor specifically Russian nationalist. We can look at many aspects: immigration, internal federal policy, cultural and just politics where nationalist parties and organizations were outright banned. Even if he is in some way sincerely ideological it doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect his mishmash rhetoric and policy.
Yes, I am Russian and live in Russia currently. While Russian nationalist that are pro-Putin exist they are unknown to the mostly apolitical wide public and treated with disdain by politically active youth.
People can be ideologically-driven psychopaths, and ineffective at the same time. And I assure you — if Strelkov came to power, economic efficiency would just drop. Because he would fire Nabiulina, actually competent banker, and would put someone like Glazyev in her stead, who is even less competent than Erdogan when it comes to monetary policy. But hey, at least he hates hohols.
There is wide gulf between full war-time economy proposed by Strelkov and current Vietnam level spending. Girkin wants to "liberate" whole Ukraine, with smaller goals kremlins need less commitment but still higher than current one. I am talking about not inefficiency but policies that are going against Russian nationalist or imperialist belief supposedly held by Putin.
Just find an article from Khodaryonok saying back before the invasion that it was absolutely meager. A large-scale war isn't fought with a hundred Javelins or Stingers. Operation Unifier or several hundreds of millions dollars sent to Ukraine over the years weren't the decisive factor either.
They weren't that successful 9 years ago either — not taking Mariupol in 2015 even after Russian MOD sending their units into Ukraine.
I didn't say Putin is a nationalist, I said he was ideologically driven. Thinking that he is a new Ekaterina the Great. Ekaterina wasn't a nationalist, she accepted Muslims and European colonists in her realm. Patrushev, Kiriyenko — those are ideologues too. The rest are lèche-culs. But Göring too was more interested in his personal enrichment and aggrandizement. In regimes like that not everyone is Hitler or Himmler.
Just find articles on Meduza, Verstka or Mediazona on how military factories work right now — in 3 shifts, without possibility of taking vacations. How expenses, especially the closed part of the budget grew. If you don't see something, or if you still can enjoy your morning latte somewhere in café in Moscow — doesn't mean the system doesn't make efforts. People dance in night clubs in Kyiv too, you know.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Ukraine is different. It is a European country that is being fast-tracked into the EU. Those who try to attack my friends, will get harshly punished.
The rules are clear. Just because someone somewhere broke them and didn't get punished is not an excuse.
In other words they are getting fast tracked into diversity, ESG ratings and rule by wall street. Ukraine has remained Ukraine after centuries of Russian rule. Berlin is turning into a third world city 30 years after "freedom". The EU elites hate everything that is actually European. They want to turn it into a souless consumerist platform for Amazon and Netflix.
Are you from the EU?
Unfortunately.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The wall street does not rule the world or countries. They certainly do lobbying but it is not a dictatorship and many smart people constantly suggest ways how to improve the global financial system.
Noah Smith have made very good comparisons about the economy of the post-soviet countries – the countries which have joined the EU have developed faster than those which didn't. If you look from the point of view of freedoms, you will see the same results.
Ukraine has lost a lot of potential by failing to join the EU sooner. Better late than never.
You have the causation exactly backwards (just like Noah Smith). The countries that joined the EU were the countries that had already transitioned better.
That's not really true. At some point Russia's GDP was even higher than Latvia's. Belarus is also relatively stable and more prosperous than Ukraine.
The EU membership boosted the growth of their members quite considerably.
Of course, you could say that readiness to join the EU was also a big impetus for necessary reforms. Turkey was going that way too. But since they clearly decided not to join the EU, their growth stalled.
It isn’t about size of gdp or gdp per capita. It was a question of how they privatized. Ukraine and Russia privatization scheme was corrupt beyond belief. Other areas (eg Poland) implemented schemes that would lead to long term growth.
There was not much of a pie to divide at the start. All countries started being very poor but some countries received new investments and others not.
Specifically in Ukraine oligarhs resisted establishing links with the EU exactly because they feared that new investments will make their wealth to become proportionally much smaller (hence, losing power). If Ukraine had joined the EU despite inefficient privatization, it would have been much more developed today.
On the other hand, the countries that remained economically related to Russia, the risk of western investments was too high and they remained poor.
That just isn’t true. The idea it was zero and FDI is what made the difference belies the fact that some of the countries were just relatively poor and some of the richer countries did worse. Maybe it is a miracle but the transitional economies that performed better were those who transitioned better. Maybe “wasn’t a shit show” is predictive of growth better than “got fdi”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What rules are clear? Can you name them or provide a link to them? None of this is in the UN Charter by the way - the Security Council decides these things.
The rule that you are not allowed to occupy other countries without a good reason.
The rule is enforced by most powerful countries on this planet, namely, NATO countries who supply Ukraine sufficient weapons so that they can fight against Russian occupying forces.
When did that rule come about, and where is it written?
Will this rule be enforced the next time a NATO country feels like occupying another country (probably Russia)? Or is this a rule that only exists for weak, non-NATO countries? If NATO is supplanted by another power, like China, will this rule no longer apply and will countries be allowed to occupy each other again?
You can never predict the future...
And you all are probably better historians than me anyway.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So the 'rules based order' has nothing to do with coherent, consistent law, it's just an excuse to do whatever NATO wants. You must agree that the choice of judge for 'good reasons' is all-important here. Otherwise we'd all be cheering on the SMO like the Economist did in 1999. They wouldn't print the following: 'Bringing the Ukrainians to heel! A massive bombing attack opens the door to peace'.
Onto my second point, what is the point of NATO influencing Ukraine? Since there's no moral/legal reason, there must be a strategic reason. Ukraine has some agricultural land, some gas, the old T-80 production line - yet that's not really a game-changer for anyone. The bulk of the strategic value is in the Black Sea ports, Crimea, gas pipelines, bases relevant to weakening Russia. Ukraine matters more to Russia than it does to the West, in the same way that Mexico or Cuba matters more to the US than to China. Proximity is important. The obvious reason to seek Ukrainian and Georgian membership in NATO is to pressure and surround Russia. It's similarly obvious that Russia is angered by this - they made it abundantly clear that they were very angry about this for years and years.
We should not go around antagonizing major powers with enough nuclear weapons to sweep us all into the dustbin of history, not unless core strategic interests are threatened. We should not have undermined coherent, non-arbitrary ideas like 'don't engage in wars without Security Council consensus' - others can play that game too.
Maybe Russia should have offered Ukraine a more appealing prospect than the EU.
Getting mad because other countries have the right to self determination is an interesting take.
The country invading a sovereign nation is the one engaging in war.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean sorta? Might makes right never went away, but the most powerful country generally wants a rules based system most of the time, and so one exists. With just enough exceptions and post hoc rationalization to prevent two nuclear armed powers from coming to direct conflict.
'Do what I say or I'll shoot you' is a rule, but it's not generally what we mean by a rules-based international order, and if America has no justification for it's hegemony other than force, you shouldn't be surprised when others seek to use force to challenge that hegemony.
I'm not, it's exactly what I expect. Then again, I would expect it even if the US had an additional justification, such is the nature of power. Additionally I expect the rules based system to only last as long as US hegemony does.
But I also expect what comes next to be considered much worse, regardless of how much people talk now about America being evil. Despite getting to set the rules (and, admittedly, getting quite a few carve outs in its favor), Pax Americana has been good for basically everyone, save possibly the Russian elite.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I would say that about 30-35 million people that can be added to the global community that is engaged in improving human society is a big deal. It is not only about advancement of technologies because this can be done also in dictatorships like China but about the fabric of the society that is beneficial for all of us. The society is constantly facing different problems (social networks, lockdowns, lack of democracy etc.) that we need more people to deal with these problems in a positively progressive way instead of heavy-handed manner.
The biggest problem with dictatorship is that it is less effective. Putin started a senseless war that hurt Russia a lot. In Western democracies people can also make wrong choices but it is self correcting and it is better in long term development.
More options
Context Copy link
China is planning to build their base on Cuba, and Russia increasing their presence there. I guess, a special military operation Bay of Pigs style is totally justified, as it is posited by the so called "realists". And you will support it, right? Ukraine is in the sphere of Russia, Cuba is in the sphere of the US?
https://www.reuters.com/world/china-post-spy-facility-cuba-off-southeastern-us-wsj-2023-06-08/
Yes, its permissible to go in on Cuba. It wouldn't be the first or even the tenth time the US interfered in the sovereignty of Latin American nations.
More options
Context Copy link
By meddling in the sphere of influence of another country, you are risking instability and conflict - whether that's Cuba or Ukraine. This is particularly true when it comes to a imperialist nation prone to belligerency, like the United States. China should not unnecessarily antagonize the US like this, and if this leads to war, I think they could be partly responsible.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course that isn’t what the poster said. He didn’t say he supported the Russian war. He said NATO antagonized Russia. That doesn’t imply war is the correct response.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you truly not blind to the absurdity of your statement? ?
"without a good reason" is doing heavy weightlifting here :)
Obviously Russians are sure they also have a good reason, like every invader ever.
I'm becoming partial to the 'non-aggression principle' whose primitive, naive form is espoused by libertarians. (see included image)
/images/16882233458842037.webp
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What is absurd in the statement that Ukraine successfully pushed away Russian attack to most of their country?
As I said Ukraine might or might not recover Donbas and/or the Crimea but they successfully defended their capital from falling into Russia's hands. Now with the western help their army has only gotten stronger and I expect that they will liberate at least some of the territories currently occupied by Russians.
More options
Context Copy link
As George Soros said back in 2004:
I think it deserves a top-level post in itself: one of the reasons American right started to hate Soros was that he opposed interventionist policies of Bush. Now Tucker and co, who supported invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, declare people like him to be warmongers.
Yeah, sure.
Soros, whose institutes have been at the forefront of funding revolutions since.. well, probably longer than most of posters here have been alive, is for a "more humble foreign policy".
Right.
Even a stopped clock may be right once in a while.
But OK, I'll push back on a more object-level, without sneering. On forefront of which revolutions was he? Velvet revolution? Singing Revolution in Baltic countries? Orange Revolution? Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan? Euromaidan? Rose Revolution in Georgia? Because it's a nice narrative concocted by Russian propaganda, Orban and pro-Ru types, about CIA or Soros, but it just doesn't hold and betrays both ignorance and conspiratorial thinking.
I doubt he was very involved with the '89 revolutions on accounts of pervasive intelligence agency presence in those regimes.
He's given a total of 19 billion $ in grants over the past 30 years.
To quote their webpage:
(Unless, of course, it's the people who are wrong, as when they vote for AfD, Trump, or the Farmer's Party in the Netherlands.
That's money going towards funding professional activists whose values Soros likes.
What are those values ?
Free flow of capital, no borders, de-industrialization, liberation of man from all unchosen bonds, thus consequent societal atomization..
How 'great' these values work out can be seen in the UK, Germany, etc.
You forgot to include Israel in the list of baddies who don't like Soros.
A cancer can attack anyone, even bad people. That doesn't make it good. It's pretty easy to understand why people have reservations about him, for me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Good for him for developing democracy in those countries by funding libraries, scientists and free media. Unfortunately, despite all efforts Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria slide back into corruption and their elites keep pocketing EU money, of course Soros is a good scapegoat for their failures. Gullible people there love this Soros shit, makes them feel smart.
Gullible people fall for bait.
That doesn't make what Soros is doing good.
Gender ideology kills populations. Abolishing criminal justice destroys law and order, a necessary prerequisite for a functioning society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link