5 ms·

> While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. In the last sentences of the article, the author shows his true colors and advo

> While reading it it felt like the author of this article had an axe to grind. In the last sentences of the article, the author shows his true colors and advocates for a "multipolar world", which is basically a politically-correct way of saying "we should get closer to Russia". And indeed, if you look him up, you might learn that he signed a petition calling for an end to support for Ukraine[1] and he frequently speaks out against NATO and defends Russia[2][3] [1] - https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-in-czech-republic-in-january-2023-policy-brief-within-kremlin-watchers-movement-project https://voxukraine.org/en/russian-disinformation-narratives-... [2] - https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-ruskem-zajmu-tvrdi-drulak-macron-s-putinem-ale-shodu-nenalezli-hodnoti https://ct24.ceskatelevize.cz/svet/3439336-valka-neni-v-rusk... [3] - https://tass.com/world/1460895 https://tass.com/world/1460895

boffinAudio 3y ago
>"multipolar world" Its more of a polite way of saying a great deal of the rest of the world does not want to live in a unipolar world run by the USA and its allies. So, not quite the dialectic that one would suppose. Russia is but one party to that ideology - there are many, many more, and thats what makes it multipolar.
- lajosbacs 3y ago
  No, it is a hidden way of saying that small countries have no choice of their own and they have to belong to some pole. And as luck would have it, the closest pole to central Europe would be Russia! How can someone not want that?
  - boffinAudio 3y ago
    Nonsense. That's an entirely pro-American-centric way of looking at the multipolar proposition. You've gotten too used to the hegemony. Other nations are sick of American/Western influence in their politics - which is vast and extensive, and: undeniably corrupt. A Multipolar World is one in which the sovereign rights of nations are respected and not superseded/subjugated by extra-national entities/agencies which do not answer to the democracies or indeed legislature of the nation involved. A unipolar world is one where a single nation can call up a collective cabal to form an imperial army and invade and destroy countless other nations around the world, and not a single other nation can stand against that cabal and bring its war criminals to justice. A Multipolar world is one in which small countries do have a choice of their own - and they can thus choose to eschew American hegemony. That is happening across the globe in spite of all attempts by America's hegemonic organs to maintain the iron grip they have had for decades over the worlds poor. Thankfully.
    - lajosbacs 3y ago
      wow But ok, I'll give you that -- I prefer a unipolar world with US hegemony or whatnot rather than a multipolar world where I have to live in the Russian part (which by the way absolutely never respected the nations that it had subjugated, convince me that I'm wrong).
      - boffinAudio 3y ago
        Indeed. We live in interesting times. BRICS to the rescue! I think you are stuck in the dialectic of Russia vs. USA - but the rest of the world is not so easily trapped. If you'd prefer to live in the USA hegemony, its probably because you've been the recipient of its war treasure in some way - perhaps as a citizen or resident. But you would be best served in understanding this situation by actually looking at things from the perspective of the masses who have suffered under American boots for too long - the other side of the polarity of your desired hegemonic wealth: the people from whom it was stolen .. all you have to do is go for a non-tourist-package journey through the Americas .. or talk to a citizen of an African nation about the colonization of their continent by American-backed Western entities for decades...
        actionfromafar 3y ago
        These small nations will in a multipolar world soon enjoy Wagner and Chinese boots instead.
        js8 3y ago
        You think that smaller countries cannot make a military alliance against bigger countries? Why? Isn't it what the US and EU did?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        These lesser nations are not worthy to make their own decisions, eh? And anyway: What Chinese boots? If China has invaded, destroyed and decimated another sovereign nation and left its people in tatters in the last 40 years, please inform me. Show me China's Syria? Show me its Afghanistan, its Libya, its Yemen? Show me China's West Bank? It doesn't exist - and that is precisely why your 'lesser' nations are choosing the "Chinese Belt and Road initiatives" over "Western-made Syrian Open Slave Markets" and "American-made Depleted Uranium Deposit States", etc .. People across the globe don't believe the American lie any more. They've seen the products of American war hegemony, even if American citizens haven't, and they're not impressed. Better to do a deal with China that results in roads and hospitals being built, than to do it with the USA, resulting in roads and hospitals being bombed.
skrebbel 3y ago
You use quotes around “multipolar world” but it’s not a quote. I think you should be clearer about that. The final paragraph suggests we should avoid “the trap of political absolute-whether socialism or capitalism, economic pragmatism or national populism—and using the power of irony against those who claim to have found the ultimate truth.” That seems like a very healthy suggestion to me, irrespective of whether you think randomly invading your friendly neighbourhood democracy is reasonable or not. Even if the author is shown to be obviously pro-Russia in other sources, this here is a suggestion to resist absolute truths and to read you some Kundera. There’s nothing wrong with that.

boffinAudio 3y ago

>"multipolar world" Its more of a polite way of saying a great deal of the rest of the world does not want to live in a unipolar world run by the USA and its allies. So, not quite the dialectic that one would suppose. Russia is but one party to that ideology - there are many, many more, and thats what makes it multipolar.

lajosbacs 3y ago
No, it is a hidden way of saying that small countries have no choice of their own and they have to belong to some pole. And as luck would have it, the closest pole to central Europe would be Russia! How can someone not want that?
- boffinAudio 3y ago
  Nonsense. That's an entirely pro-American-centric way of looking at the multipolar proposition. You've gotten too used to the hegemony. Other nations are sick of American/Western influence in their politics - which is vast and extensive, and: undeniably corrupt. A Multipolar World is one in which the sovereign rights of nations are respected and not superseded/subjugated by extra-national entities/agencies which do not answer to the democracies or indeed legislature of the nation involved. A unipolar world is one where a single nation can call up a collective cabal to form an imperial army and invade and destroy countless other nations around the world, and not a single other nation can stand against that cabal and bring its war criminals to justice. A Multipolar world is one in which small countries do have a choice of their own - and they can thus choose to eschew American hegemony. That is happening across the globe in spite of all attempts by America's hegemonic organs to maintain the iron grip they have had for decades over the worlds poor. Thankfully.
  - lajosbacs 3y ago
    wow But ok, I'll give you that -- I prefer a unipolar world with US hegemony or whatnot rather than a multipolar world where I have to live in the Russian part (which by the way absolutely never respected the nations that it had subjugated, convince me that I'm wrong).
    - boffinAudio 3y ago
      Indeed. We live in interesting times. BRICS to the rescue! I think you are stuck in the dialectic of Russia vs. USA - but the rest of the world is not so easily trapped. If you'd prefer to live in the USA hegemony, its probably because you've been the recipient of its war treasure in some way - perhaps as a citizen or resident. But you would be best served in understanding this situation by actually looking at things from the perspective of the masses who have suffered under American boots for too long - the other side of the polarity of your desired hegemonic wealth: the people from whom it was stolen .. all you have to do is go for a non-tourist-package journey through the Americas .. or talk to a citizen of an African nation about the colonization of their continent by American-backed Western entities for decades...
      - actionfromafar 3y ago
        These small nations will in a multipolar world soon enjoy Wagner and Chinese boots instead.
        js8 3y ago
        You think that smaller countries cannot make a military alliance against bigger countries? Why? Isn't it what the US and EU did?
        boffinAudio 3y ago
        These lesser nations are not worthy to make their own decisions, eh? And anyway: What Chinese boots? If China has invaded, destroyed and decimated another sovereign nation and left its people in tatters in the last 40 years, please inform me. Show me China's Syria? Show me its Afghanistan, its Libya, its Yemen? Show me China's West Bank? It doesn't exist - and that is precisely why your 'lesser' nations are choosing the "Chinese Belt and Road initiatives" over "Western-made Syrian Open Slave Markets" and "American-made Depleted Uranium Deposit States", etc .. People across the globe don't believe the American lie any more. They've seen the products of American war hegemony, even if American citizens haven't, and they're not impressed. Better to do a deal with China that results in roads and hospitals being built, than to do it with the USA, resulting in roads and hospitals being bombed.

skrebbel 3y ago

You use quotes around “multipolar world” but it’s not a quote. I think you should be clearer about that. The final paragraph suggests we should avoid “the trap of political absolute-whether socialism or capitalism, economic pragmatism or national populism—and using the power of irony against those who claim to have found the ultimate truth.” That seems like a very healthy suggestion to me, irrespective of whether you think randomly invading your friendly neighbourhood democracy is reasonable or not. Even if the author is shown to be obviously pro-Russia in other sources, this here is a suggestion to resist absolute truths and to read you some Kundera. There’s nothing wrong with that.