5 ms·

This is realpolitik, so there isn't any morality beyond expansion and acquisition. Can we stop pretending these are anything other than resource wars, combined

This is realpolitik, so there isn't any morality beyond expansion and acquisition. Can we stop pretending these are anything other than resource wars, combined with an excuse to throw money at the defence industries? Russia looked at US actions in Iraq etc and apparently had an irrational attack of imperial atrocity envy, blended with greed over the mineral-rich areas of Eastern Ukraine. Neither empire is wholesome and good, but the Russians are almost wholly crap at militarised colonialism, while the US is fairly competent at it. However... Russia is much better at subversion and bribery. Given Jan 6 and the wholesale co-option of the far right of the Republican party - which is most of it - only someone very naive would believe that the US and NATO aren't in danger of being subverted from within. It almost happened in 2020 and it could still happen in 2024. My suspicion is that Ukraine is part distraction, part attrition campaign against NATO, and part proxy war with China, with Russia as willing (because naively stupid) intermediary. The real front is the internal politics of each NATO state. Hungary is already lost, the UK is severely weakened by Brexit, Germany was compromised but is recovering, and the US has some very serious problems with infiltration and subversion. Which are not being taken seriously enough.

redbar0n 4y ago
> militarised colonialism, while the US is fairly competent at it. Are they, actually? Vietnam, Afghanistan etc..
- aa-jv 4y ago
  We must never forget that the American people murdered 5% of Iraqs' population on the basis of utter lies and have not faced justice for this atrocious abuse. The moral authority that Americans claim, to justify their nations' heinous crimes against humanity, simply doesn't exist. Americans AND Russians ought to be shunned for their nations' war crimes.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    No one claims a 2M+ death toll in Iraq, as far as I can tell.
    - aa-jv 4y ago
      Of course, because that would destroy the frail moral authority that American's use to impose their war conditions across the globe... But, you know, those doing all the healing of the victims, have been keeping track: https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/body-count.pdf https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/body-count.pdf "Thus, the intense debate revolving around casualty figures is an important element in the discussion of whether the population supports such interventions or not. It is therefore not surprising that the media, and even parts of academia, be it ideologically motivated or guided by other interests, use starkly sanitized figures (see Chapter 3: “The Numbers War”) And this has been quite successful: In a 2007 poll, Americans estimated the number of killed Iraqis at less than 10,000. However, should the number of Iraqis killed from the 2003 U.S. invasion until 2012 actually be around one million, as the analysis of the existing scientific studies presented in the present study suggests, this would represent 5% of the total population of Iraq – a number which additionally indicates the extent of the corresponding damage inflicted upon society and the infrastructure. " “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Like I said, no one's claiming 2M. Even if we take the most aggressive estimate (out of those listed on Wikipedia) of 1M, that's not 5% of the population.
        aa-jv 4y ago
        Maybe you should match your figures with those of the Physicians for Social Responsibility: "However, should the number of Iraqis killed from the 2003 U.S. invasion until 2012 actually be around one million, as the analysis of the existing scientific studies presented in the present study suggests, this would represent 5% of the total population of Iraq .." Of course Americans' aren't going to own up to the magnitude of this crime. But it should be noted that this report was issued in 2015 - and a lot more death has happened since then. 5% is a conservative estimate.
blub 4y ago
Did the US ever present any proof of Russia manipulating elections or co-opting any politicians? After Trump was cleared, I’ve started thinking that the US is just going through another Red Scare.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  You can skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... for a wide range of items with varying levels of evidence. "Proof" comes down to whether you're willing to accept assertions - the ability to execute a search warrant on the Kremlin is... limited - and what level of interference counts. The Republicans concluded Paul Manafort, for example, "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" and "created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign" while acting as Trump's campaign manager. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/senate-details-paul-manafort-ties-russian-intel-officer-kilimnik/3390437001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/sena...
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    That article does not seem to have been updated given the recent massive trove of information provided by the Twitter files. [1] A group, "Hamilton 68", was a central source on the "Russian trolls" narrative. They were widely cited, frequently as an exclusive source, by media and congressmen alike. They had a secret list of 644 "Russian trolls" whom they surveilled and used to populate their dashboard on the latest trends in Russian disinformation. The problem is that those were mostly just 644 seemingly random, primarily conservative, "real" Western individuals. For instance David Horowitz [2] was a "Russian troll." Others included individuals who had written books on the US constitution, a conservative news editor, and so on. So basically whatever conservative individuals were discussing was labeled as "Russian disinformation" which the media (and congress) then simply took at face value and repeated. Incidentally Twitter also knew that the "Russian disinformation" stuff was, itself, largely disinformation. They were able to determine Hamilton's entire list by simply looking at their API calls. While there was lively internal debate about whether they should go public with this information or not, and they did push back in private, they ultimately chose to remain publicly silent - just as the mainstream media is now also doing, leaving me to link to rando sites in lieu of where these stories ought be. The one thing I'm certain about is that reading the book, 20 years from now, about whatever's happening now - is going to be interesting. [1] - https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilton https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilt... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz
enaaem 4y ago
The US influence in the world it's not just militarily. It's economic, cultural, technologic, and idealogical influence is unprecedented. The USSR had a exportable ideology, but current Russian ethno-nationalism is rather a negative influence than a positive one.

redbar0n 4y ago

> militarised colonialism, while the US is fairly competent at it. Are they, actually? Vietnam, Afghanistan etc..

aa-jv 4y ago
We must never forget that the American people murdered 5% of Iraqs' population on the basis of utter lies and have not faced justice for this atrocious abuse. The moral authority that Americans claim, to justify their nations' heinous crimes against humanity, simply doesn't exist. Americans AND Russians ought to be shunned for their nations' war crimes.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  No one claims a 2M+ death toll in Iraq, as far as I can tell.
  - aa-jv 4y ago
    Of course, because that would destroy the frail moral authority that American's use to impose their war conditions across the globe... But, you know, those doing all the healing of the victims, have been keeping track: https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/body-count.pdf https://psr.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/body-count.pdf "Thus, the intense debate revolving around casualty figures is an important element in the discussion of whether the population supports such interventions or not. It is therefore not surprising that the media, and even parts of academia, be it ideologically motivated or guided by other interests, use starkly sanitized figures (see Chapter 3: “The Numbers War”) And this has been quite successful: In a 2007 poll, Americans estimated the number of killed Iraqis at less than 10,000. However, should the number of Iraqis killed from the 2003 U.S. invasion until 2012 actually be around one million, as the analysis of the existing scientific studies presented in the present study suggests, this would represent 5% of the total population of Iraq – a number which additionally indicates the extent of the corresponding damage inflicted upon society and the infrastructure. " “I believe the perception caused by civilian casualties is one of the most dangerous enemies we face.” U.S. General Stanley A. McCrystal in his inaugural speech as ISAF Commander in June 2009.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Like I said, no one's claiming 2M. Even if we take the most aggressive estimate (out of those listed on Wikipedia) of 1M, that's not 5% of the population.
      - aa-jv 4y ago
        Maybe you should match your figures with those of the Physicians for Social Responsibility: "However, should the number of Iraqis killed from the 2003 U.S. invasion until 2012 actually be around one million, as the analysis of the existing scientific studies presented in the present study suggests, this would represent 5% of the total population of Iraq .." Of course Americans' aren't going to own up to the magnitude of this crime. But it should be noted that this report was issued in 2015 - and a lot more death has happened since then. 5% is a conservative estimate.

blub 4y ago

Did the US ever present any proof of Russia manipulating elections or co-opting any politicians? After Trump was cleared, I’ve started thinking that the US is just going through another Red Scare.

ceejayoz 4y ago
You can skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20... for a wide range of items with varying levels of evidence. "Proof" comes down to whether you're willing to accept assertions - the ability to execute a search warrant on the Kremlin is... limited - and what level of interference counts. The Republicans concluded Paul Manafort, for example, "represented a grave counterintelligence threat" and "created opportunities for Russian intelligence services to exert influence over, and acquire confidential information on, the Trump campaign" while acting as Trump's campaign manager. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/senate-details-paul-manafort-ties-russian-intel-officer-kilimnik/3390437001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/08/18/sena...
- somenameforme 4y ago
  That article does not seem to have been updated given the recent massive trove of information provided by the Twitter files. [1] A group, "Hamilton 68", was a central source on the "Russian trolls" narrative. They were widely cited, frequently as an exclusive source, by media and congressmen alike. They had a secret list of 644 "Russian trolls" whom they surveilled and used to populate their dashboard on the latest trends in Russian disinformation. The problem is that those were mostly just 644 seemingly random, primarily conservative, "real" Western individuals. For instance David Horowitz [2] was a "Russian troll." Others included individuals who had written books on the US constitution, a conservative news editor, and so on. So basically whatever conservative individuals were discussing was labeled as "Russian disinformation" which the media (and congress) then simply took at face value and repeated. Incidentally Twitter also knew that the "Russian disinformation" stuff was, itself, largely disinformation. They were able to determine Hamilton's entire list by simply looking at their API calls. While there was lively internal debate about whether they should go public with this information or not, and they did push back in private, they ultimately chose to remain publicly silent - just as the mainstream media is now also doing, leaving me to link to rando sites in lieu of where these stories ought be. The one thing I'm certain about is that reading the book, 20 years from now, about whatever's happening now - is going to be interesting. [1] - https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilton https://www.racket.news/p/move-over-jayson-blair-meet-hamilt... [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz

enaaem 4y ago

The US influence in the world it's not just militarily. It's economic, cultural, technologic, and idealogical influence is unprecedented. The USSR had a exportable ideology, but current Russian ethno-nationalism is rather a negative influence than a positive one.