Ukrainian Ambassador freaks out, telling Elon Musk to ‘F– Off’ after he catually outlines the obvious fair and honest way to peace with Russia on Twitter, without the fake dog-and-pony show

submitted by SoCo from news.yahoo.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (25 children)

[deleted]

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (12 children)

    America's federal institutions don't see things from the other perspective. They just want global domination.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    If this "domination" makes world a better place, I don't see why not. Of course I'd prefer to see healthy competition, like say EU vs. USA, but no, I don't think the "collective West" (as Putler refers to his adversaries) vs. Putin-Xi Axis would be such. I'd much rather see the latter two monsters GTFO.

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (10 children)

    No. It would not make the world a better place. America is pushing feminism, transgenderism, corporate cronyism, male genital mutilation, Israel-worshipping, socialism, woke culture, overly processed food, car-dependency, child drag queens, transgender children, drug use, hood rat culture, and other horrible things on the rest of the world. I don’t see Putin as an angel, but I certainly don’t want to be a slave to American dominance either.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

    Lmao at "America pushing socialism" trope. A country that by now has the most brutally unrestraint capitalism in the Western world (compare with Germany, France, Britain, let alone these Scandi nanny states) is "pushing socialism"? Did Revolver News tell you that or are you an autodidact?

    Funny how you Putin worshippers basically fall into 2 extreme camps: far right like you on one hand and the Old Left leftovers (pun intended) on the other side. Which, I believe, leaves any sane person in the middle?

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    America gives gibs to single mothers, illegal immigrants and corporations. That's what socialists countries do. Also, American universities are promoting socialism. The American government also picks winners and losers in some markets, which is also what socialist countries do. If America was truly a capitalist country, we'd have alternatives to Amazon, Google and YouTube who are big enough to prevent those countries from dominating the markets, plus healthcare would be much more affordable.

    I don't worship Putin. I simply don't think he's any worse than Bush, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy, Boris Johnson or LBJ.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    America gives gibs to single mothers, illegal immigrants and corporations. That's what socialists countries do. Also, American universities are promoting socialism.

    This is not inaccurate, but theres a bit more nuance to this.

    The word socialism has been 'redefined' from an ideology that is a type of communism with public workers and public ownership of means of production, to a type of capitalism, that leaves private capital ownership and the market economy in place, but uses heavy progressive taxation to provide a strong and expensive social safety net. The Scandinavian countries would be a good example of this type of economy, and for better or worse, seems to be what some on the left are angling for (Bernie Sanders advocates for these kind of policies). Many on the left are not though, people like Biden want nothing to do with policies like Universal Health Care and other neo-socialist policies, because the insurance companies give them tons of money

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You could argue that the Scandinavian countries are socialist. After all, you have world class healthcare and education provided by the government. Of course, their leaders do not consider their countries socialist in the truest sense. There are free markets in a lot of areas, so it’s easy to do business compared to America. In fact, their markets are freer than America. More expensive because of higher taxes and operating expenses, sure, but less rules to follow. Also, there are no minimum wage laws in those countries. In a way, the Nordic countries are very capitalist, even if they are considered socialist.

    I do get your point. Communism and socialism are not necessarily the same. Something I forget time to time. I guess what makes socialism work in the Nordic countries is the fact that it is used for the benefit of the people, whereas in the US only corporations benefit from socialism because American politicians would rather bail out banks and corporations than give back money to the states so that the states can provide healthcare and education.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Yes, its unfortunate that 'socialism' has a rather ambiguous meaning nowadays. I'm not sure how well the Scandinavian model would work here either. It seemed to work well in Scandinavia when the population was very homogenous - they don't mind being generous to their own. The influx of immigrants that do not assimilate culturally, commit crimes at higher rates, and use up a lot of those social services are now causing some very serious backlash against these policies. Americans are so racially diverse and fragmented by identity groups, that this seems like a recipe for much civil unrest, even though the liberal part of me likes the idea of reducing inequality and poverty and doesn't mind making the rich pay more of a share

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    The Nordic countries are small and homogeneous. Denmark has strict immigration laws, and Sweden will soon because there’s been a backlash against immigration over there. You also have to pay a lot of taxes, which is fine if you know where your taxes are going and they are going into projects that benefit you. The most important thing is having a high trust society, which is essential in order for the Nordic model to work. And which no longer exists in America.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Healthcare would be affordable, if you had European-style universal healthcare, which the GOP moneybags keep labelling "socialist". According to everything you posted just now, pretty much all civilized countries have been "socialist" since about 1900.

    Btw, in the genuinely socialist Cuba, healthcare is very much affordable, except that it's actually crappy.

    All the politicians you listed as akin to Putin in evilness were democratically elected and when some of them ran again and lost then they handed power to the next popularly elected leader. Only a moron could see them on the same footing as Russia's dictator. When Bush Jr. was president and launched the misguided invasion of Iraq, did he send critics of war to prison? Did he have his political opponents poisoned? Even if he had wanted to he couldn't, because America is a functioning, competitive democracy. Just like Britain and France.

    [–]RedEyedWarriorIndependent 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Bush humiliated critics of his wars. He called him traitors and incited his supporters to shame his critics. You could say that it's not as bad as arresting his opponents, but this is still how dictatorships begin. Bush also implemented mass surveillance so that he could spy on Americans. That's what dictators do.

    France and Britian are certainly not functioning democracies. You can go to prison for stating controversial opinions on social media. A veteran in Britain got arrested by the police for posting a meme mocking the LGBT pride flag earlier this year. Again, I don't see how those two shit holes are freer than Russia.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

    Ukraine is a large country: biggest country in Europe area-wise (excluding Russia and Turkey as Eurasian countries) and with a population of about one third of Russia's. It's ridiculous to argue a relatively large country shouldn't have the right to choose its own path of development. And this development has been adopting most Western values and democracy. I'm from a very small ex-socialist country with plenty of "US involvement", which I approve of, because otherwise we'd likely be a part of Putler's shithole country by now. Bottom line is: no civilized nation really wants to be a Russian protectorate, whilst lots of such nations agree to become a US protectorate. Why is that?

    [–]sampleusername 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

    I don't care who is in charge. It's just kind of dumb to insist that the US would be able to forever exert its influence over nations that share a border with Russia. That's as untenable as Russia maintaining control of Cuba, or doing worse and trying to capture Mexico.

    It's not possible to have a one world system of supply chains and government that persists through the ages, as we are all hardwired for greed and selfishness, leading to eventual degradation and collapse. And when that happens the first nations to fall away are always those that are furthest from the epicenter of power and closest to the borders of their enemies.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    That's as untenable as Russia maintaining control of Cuba, or doing worse and trying to capture Mexico.

    You are absolutely right, there are a lot of parallels between the Cuban missile crises and what we see in Ukraine, just with the roles reversed. We were ourselves were ready to go to war over a hostile power building military bases in our backyard

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

    The difference of course being that USA is a wealthy democratic country, and Ukraine is a rather poor democratic country, whilst the USSR was a very poor tyranny and Cuba was a GDP-wise wealthy country with many poor social indicators that the Soviet-aligned communist tyranny there ruined completely. You're drawing false analogies.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Yeah we didn't care about the missile bases at all, it was all just concern over Cuba's social indicators, how could I be so blind.

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Of course Kennedy had to care, because even under the "liberal" Khruschev the USSR was a nasty imperialist country, a cancer. How does this compare with Ukraine? suppose it had been accepted to NATO. So which threat would it posed to anyone? americans launching missiles to target Moscow, so as to "spread NWO and globohomo"?

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    the USSR was a nasty imperialist country,

    And the US wasn't and isn't? Are you aware of our actions in South America and the Middle East over the last 50 years? And the lack of humanitarian military intervention in places like Africa where we didn't have economic or imperial interests?

    How does this compare with Ukraine?

    An empire hostile to Russia (us) built military bases in their backyard (Ukraine), and they freaked out just like we did when they put missile in our backyard (Cuba)

    so as to "spread NWO and globohomo"?

    You are mistaking me for some sort of alt-right ideologist, I am not, I am pretty far to the left on most issues. Being anti-war anti-US imperialist intervention used to be a standard left wing position

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    US imperialism vs. Soviet imperialism? Look, we can play the apples and oranges game endlessly. Not a single country ever joined the Soviet bloc willingly. Let's say, a country with a functioning democratic system where people have a reasonable choice.

    Now how does this compare to lots of ex-socialist, now functioning democracies joining the camp of "US imperialism"? Why is that? You're still arguing that all superpowers are pretty much equally good and bad?

    As to the standard leftist counterpoints (I initially thought you're some alt-wrong antisemitic zealot like the other guy opposing me here, hence "globohomo" trope, I do apologize, I was a moderate lefty in my youth myself): USA propped up the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America to avoid them going communist, in case the establishment couldn't see any alternatives. Venezuela had left populist tendencies but CIA didn't launch any coup there, it continued to be a 2-party democracy. Support for hard-right regimes however included massively turning blind eye to human rights violations. And even then, Dems under Carter began to pressure the most obnoxiuous regimes, regrettably Carter didn't get the second term.

    After the Cold War was over, the US didn't support any far-right movements any more and left the Latin America alone. And now you have Nicaragua and the Venezuelan dictatorship, which lets people die of malnutrition in a country that once had a GDP per capita higher than that of West Germany!

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    US imperialism vs. Soviet imperialism? Look, we can play the apples and oranges game endlessly. Not a single country ever joined the Soviet bloc willingly. Let's say, a country with a functioning democratic system where people have a reasonable choice.

    Yeah I'll concede that Soviet imperialism was a worse thing than Western imperialism.

    You're still arguing that all superpowers are pretty much equally good and bad?

    No, just that we aren't innocent, and justifying our involvement by 'because Russia is doing imperialism' is somewhat hypocritical

    USA propped up the right-wing dictatorships in Latin America to avoid them going communist

    Yes...but not for ideological reasons. For economic reasons. We very very much want the natural resources in these countries to remained privatized so we can exploit them, nationalizing these resources under any sort of socialist or communist regime is a recipe for a US coup or embargo.

    Our coups, sanctions, drug wars and other mischief are probably to blame for the current border crisis

    After the Cold War was over, the US didn't support any far-right movements any more and left the Latin America alone.

    . And now you have Nicaragua and the Venezuelan dictatorship, which lets people die of malnutrition

    Well...we stopped doing outright coups. We are the ones doing fuel and food embargos and keeping venezuelans from eating.

    https://fair.org/home/calibrated-dishonesty-western-media-coverage-of-venezuela-sanctions/

    Yes its a dictatorship, but we have supported a ton of those over the years as long as they are 'our' dictators who will ensure no nationalization of resources will take place.

    Just recently we put pressure on Chile NOT to redo the fascist constitution put in place under military dictate by our hand picked fascist Pinochet. This WaPo article makes it very clear that the pressure was due to our interest in stopping them from nationalizing the lithium we want our private corporations to mine for us. This was days after Biden's speech about needing to stop fascism because its a threat to democracy, but apparently a little fascism is OK

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/08/31/chile-constitution-vote-reject-rewrite/

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    So you're advocating the isolationist line or something? Right now USA has been lend-leasing like it tried to do to so as to help Britain (and later Soviet Union) even before the official declaration of said policiy, let alone official entry to war. Like, Nazi Germany also was a striving power combatting the Anglo-Saxon hegemony. And of course the "first nations to fall away" were Czechoslovakia and then Poland. so are you like rationalizing aggression or merely supporting do-nothing policies?

    [–]raven9 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    lots of such nations agree to become a US protectorate. Why is that?

    Would that be lots of nations that sneakily implemented unrestricted mail in voting even though the entire political world was well aware it compromised the inherent security that was afforded by the in person ballot at the polling booth? Would those same countries have had a inexplicable string of pro neo-liberal, pro US leaders that agree with everything the US says on every issue?

    [–]JosephDeMaistre 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What the hell are you talking about? Are you one of those fellas who cannot locate Mexico on the map? Maybe try checking the map of NATO members in Europe, check the variety: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_NATO#/media/File:NATO_30_Members.png

    Mail in voting wasn't even an issue when Lithuania elected a nominally center-left government in 1992, i.e. mostly formed of former Communist Party members, which declared NATO and EU membership as the country's strategic aims. And which ever "strings" this country and ones with similar historical experience elected they all indeed supported this strategy. Now after Putin's "special military operation" started in February 2022, hitherto neutral Finland applied for NATO membership too and even most of the radical left https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Alliance_(Finland) voted in favour.