5 ms·

They work for countries that kneecap themselves by being at the whims of capital and the market. Countries that don't constrain themselves like that can laugh a

They work for countries that kneecap themselves by being at the whims of capital and the market. Countries that don't constrain themselves like that can laugh at sanctions because they don't matter in that context.

sigmoid10 1y ago
[flagged]
- coldtea 1y ago
  >Who cares about 35% inflation when you got your own drones to bomb Kurds, am I right? Orthogonal. You can have 35% inflation AND no drones or good arms in general. Which is worse, especially if this lack makes it easier to get invaded or "regime changed" into a failed style. >Which btw. was the original reason why Obama didn't want to give Turkey combat capable drones. The welfare of the Kurds, or using them as a proxy force against Syria, Iran, and abandoning them whenever convenient?
  - sigmoid10 1y ago
    >You can have 35% inflation AND no drones or good arms in general. I guess you can always be worse off as a country, no argument there. >if this lack makes it easier to get invaded or "regime changed" into a failed style. I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying it would be better if a country gets US weapons while being under threat of being "regime changed" into an enemy? Because that somehow seems even worse. And that's literally what the US was afraid of in Ukraine. >The welfare of the Kurds I suppose they don't care if the bombs are dropped by Turkish or US drones. But at least the sanctions delayed it by ~half a decade, so there's that.
    - coldtea 1y ago
      You said "who cares about 35% inflation when you got your own drones" Based on the parent you were replying to, I take it to imply: "don't make drones to avoid sanctions (even if it means not having arms), lest you get inflation", the latter of which you paint as the worse outcome. So, the point I made above is that if not having drones/arms etc makes it easier to be regime changed/turned into failed state, then, yes, 35% inflation would still be a small cost to pay to avoid it.
      - sigmoid10 1y ago
        I still don't get it. Are you saying that we also shouldn't send weapons to Ukraine because there is a real threat that they will end up in the enemy's hands? Or are you saying we should definitely send weapons because the opposite is a guaranteed regime change? It's kind of a lose-lose from a US POV (just like Turkey) and it still misses the actual point: Both Ukraine and Turkey will do anything to achieve their goals, they don't care what it takes to get there, even if it comes at enormous cost to their own population.
- xbmcuser 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - pydry 1y ago
    When I see how many people refuse to see the glaring inconsistencies in western propaganda like the ones you described and accept the apologetics because they feel an affinity to their tribe I stop wondering how China and Russia or indeed any other authoritarian regime ended up the way they did.
  - whymememe 1y ago
    ??? I haven’t seen the narrative that Ukraine is winning the war for at least 2 years. You should maybe choose better news sources, there’s a huge amount of very accurate reporting on it. Additionally, the Russian economy is a wartime economy, which runs hot till it collapses or wins. It’ll be fine till it’s not, but it’s very hard to predict what that point is.
  - sofixa 1y ago
    Nobody is saying that Ukraine is winning the war. Like, genuinely, go find me any reputable news source saying anything of the like from the past 3 years. Russia is definitely losing it though. Morons got themselves into a war they cannot win. Nothing Ukraine will accept can be considered a victory for the strongman dictator who needs a victory. And it's obvious now that regardless of brutality and war crimes, Russia cannot force Ukraine to accept their terms, nor can they actually occupy the whole country And they only have multiple times the population and economy and army. > Their economy is dying crashing but it is actually doing better than most of Europe. Based on what? Look up the parable of the broken window to understand why some of their economic numbers are looking decent. Them losing most of their export markets, replaced by others that pay less for the same stuff (India, China, buy discount oil and gas because Russia doesn't have that many options who to sell to) isn't a benefit for Russia. > You should stop following western main stream media as that is as controlled in its own way as Chinese or Russian state owned media. You just have an illusion of freedoms. This is an insulting false equivalence that can only come from a profound lack of knowledge or a profound personal/financial interest. "Mainstream media* in the "west" is very varied. From the Financial Times to the Guardian to New York Times to Le Monde to whatever you can think of. You would never see Russian or Chinese state owned media criticising the dear leader nor the regime. Le Monde don't even flinch reporting on various political scandals of French politicians, including the sitting Prime Minister. Nor will they shy away from an apology and correction if they got something wrong. Same goes for most reputable and quality "mainstream" "western" media. You'll never see anything of the like in China or Russia. Especially in the later, journalists literally get murdered for reporting on the regime. (Novaya Gazeta have had how many employees killed).
- elzbardico 1y ago
  Really, the only reason the Kurds are bombed are themselves. They do bad decision after bad decision constantly.
roenxi 1y ago
> They work for countries that kneecap themselves by being at the whims of capital and the market. Typically it actually looks like the opposite. When I look at, eg, North Korea or Iran - if I were going to try and make them wealthy it is mostly internal policies that are the problem and not external ones. If North Korea set itself up with single digit % company and income tax combined with a strong rule of law, local education programs and a liberal economy it would barely matter what sanctions were imposed on them. A tide of money would flow in and they'd eventually be wealthy under their own power anyway if not. Although it isn't obvious why anyone would sanction a small well run country; there is a correlation between sanctions and incompetent governance.
- kingkawn 1y ago
  This is the most profoundly arrogant thing I’ve read in a while, kudos! It’s hard to stand out on the internet these days
- anticodon 1y ago
  Most of the sanctions are whac-a-mole game played by the West (mostly by USA): as soon as one of the peripheral countries starts developing its economy, gains more wealth, starts to produce something the competes with products of Western companies, or attempts to avoid use of USD (because it allows immense enrichment of USA simply by printing it in whatever quantities), soon there starts: - firstly, media attack ("they're dictatorship!", "they're genociding someone", etc), preparing population for stricter measures - secondly, color revolution, which, if successful, puts puppet malleable government in power, and makes the country ultra-poor (most of the countries, where color revolutions staged by US/West succeeded, became significantly poorer) - if color revolution didn't work, there's always an option to just bomb the country, because it's always ignored if all the international treaties and laws are ignored if USA or Israel bomb any other nation.
  - littlestymaar 1y ago
    The US has a strong record of interfering with foreign countries in way that advantage their interests, but at the same time the fact that you bring the “color revolution” phrase is a strong marker that you are reading way too much Russian (imperialist) propaganda disguised as anti-imperialism, which really is no better than feeding on the neoconservative narrative.

sigmoid10 1y ago

[flagged]

coldtea 1y ago
>Who cares about 35% inflation when you got your own drones to bomb Kurds, am I right? Orthogonal. You can have 35% inflation AND no drones or good arms in general. Which is worse, especially if this lack makes it easier to get invaded or "regime changed" into a failed style. >Which btw. was the original reason why Obama didn't want to give Turkey combat capable drones. The welfare of the Kurds, or using them as a proxy force against Syria, Iran, and abandoning them whenever convenient?
- sigmoid10 1y ago
  >You can have 35% inflation AND no drones or good arms in general. I guess you can always be worse off as a country, no argument there. >if this lack makes it easier to get invaded or "regime changed" into a failed style. I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying it would be better if a country gets US weapons while being under threat of being "regime changed" into an enemy? Because that somehow seems even worse. And that's literally what the US was afraid of in Ukraine. >The welfare of the Kurds I suppose they don't care if the bombs are dropped by Turkish or US drones. But at least the sanctions delayed it by ~half a decade, so there's that.
  - coldtea 1y ago
    You said "who cares about 35% inflation when you got your own drones" Based on the parent you were replying to, I take it to imply: "don't make drones to avoid sanctions (even if it means not having arms), lest you get inflation", the latter of which you paint as the worse outcome. So, the point I made above is that if not having drones/arms etc makes it easier to be regime changed/turned into failed state, then, yes, 35% inflation would still be a small cost to pay to avoid it.
    - sigmoid10 1y ago
      I still don't get it. Are you saying that we also shouldn't send weapons to Ukraine because there is a real threat that they will end up in the enemy's hands? Or are you saying we should definitely send weapons because the opposite is a guaranteed regime change? It's kind of a lose-lose from a US POV (just like Turkey) and it still misses the actual point: Both Ukraine and Turkey will do anything to achieve their goals, they don't care what it takes to get there, even if it comes at enormous cost to their own population.
xbmcuser 1y ago
[flagged]
- pydry 1y ago
  When I see how many people refuse to see the glaring inconsistencies in western propaganda like the ones you described and accept the apologetics because they feel an affinity to their tribe I stop wondering how China and Russia or indeed any other authoritarian regime ended up the way they did.
- whymememe 1y ago
  ??? I haven’t seen the narrative that Ukraine is winning the war for at least 2 years. You should maybe choose better news sources, there’s a huge amount of very accurate reporting on it. Additionally, the Russian economy is a wartime economy, which runs hot till it collapses or wins. It’ll be fine till it’s not, but it’s very hard to predict what that point is.
- sofixa 1y ago
  Nobody is saying that Ukraine is winning the war. Like, genuinely, go find me any reputable news source saying anything of the like from the past 3 years. Russia is definitely losing it though. Morons got themselves into a war they cannot win. Nothing Ukraine will accept can be considered a victory for the strongman dictator who needs a victory. And it's obvious now that regardless of brutality and war crimes, Russia cannot force Ukraine to accept their terms, nor can they actually occupy the whole country And they only have multiple times the population and economy and army. > Their economy is dying crashing but it is actually doing better than most of Europe. Based on what? Look up the parable of the broken window to understand why some of their economic numbers are looking decent. Them losing most of their export markets, replaced by others that pay less for the same stuff (India, China, buy discount oil and gas because Russia doesn't have that many options who to sell to) isn't a benefit for Russia. > You should stop following western main stream media as that is as controlled in its own way as Chinese or Russian state owned media. You just have an illusion of freedoms. This is an insulting false equivalence that can only come from a profound lack of knowledge or a profound personal/financial interest. "Mainstream media* in the "west" is very varied. From the Financial Times to the Guardian to New York Times to Le Monde to whatever you can think of. You would never see Russian or Chinese state owned media criticising the dear leader nor the regime. Le Monde don't even flinch reporting on various political scandals of French politicians, including the sitting Prime Minister. Nor will they shy away from an apology and correction if they got something wrong. Same goes for most reputable and quality "mainstream" "western" media. You'll never see anything of the like in China or Russia. Especially in the later, journalists literally get murdered for reporting on the regime. (Novaya Gazeta have had how many employees killed).
elzbardico 1y ago
Really, the only reason the Kurds are bombed are themselves. They do bad decision after bad decision constantly.

roenxi 1y ago

> They work for countries that kneecap themselves by being at the whims of capital and the market. Typically it actually looks like the opposite. When I look at, eg, North Korea or Iran - if I were going to try and make them wealthy it is mostly internal policies that are the problem and not external ones. If North Korea set itself up with single digit % company and income tax combined with a strong rule of law, local education programs and a liberal economy it would barely matter what sanctions were imposed on them. A tide of money would flow in and they'd eventually be wealthy under their own power anyway if not. Although it isn't obvious why anyone would sanction a small well run country; there is a correlation between sanctions and incompetent governance.

kingkawn 1y ago
This is the most profoundly arrogant thing I’ve read in a while, kudos! It’s hard to stand out on the internet these days
anticodon 1y ago
Most of the sanctions are whac-a-mole game played by the West (mostly by USA): as soon as one of the peripheral countries starts developing its economy, gains more wealth, starts to produce something the competes with products of Western companies, or attempts to avoid use of USD (because it allows immense enrichment of USA simply by printing it in whatever quantities), soon there starts: - firstly, media attack ("they're dictatorship!", "they're genociding someone", etc), preparing population for stricter measures - secondly, color revolution, which, if successful, puts puppet malleable government in power, and makes the country ultra-poor (most of the countries, where color revolutions staged by US/West succeeded, became significantly poorer) - if color revolution didn't work, there's always an option to just bomb the country, because it's always ignored if all the international treaties and laws are ignored if USA or Israel bomb any other nation.
- littlestymaar 1y ago
  The US has a strong record of interfering with foreign countries in way that advantage their interests, but at the same time the fact that you bring the “color revolution” phrase is a strong marker that you are reading way too much Russian (imperialist) propaganda disguised as anti-imperialism, which really is no better than feeding on the neoconservative narrative.