We made a new Jimmy Dore sub. Come stop by and say hi! by [deleted] in WayOfTheBern

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

How can you really stop infiltration by other redditors? If they can take over the original sub, they can also takeover the new sub, if it grows big.

The liberals who condemn Trump's failed putsch - but happily condone a real one by CollisionResistance in WayOfTheBern

[–]CollisionResistance[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Donald Trump is a dangerous yahoo who may well destroy what is left of the USA’s constitutional government before he is finished. I do not in any way defend him. But there is something almost comically hypocritical about the establishment’s shocked reaction to the January 2021 failed putsch which he is accused of inciting.

Once again I must point out that the same liberal elite types happily condone a much worse putsch, one which succeeded and which has helped to drag Europe into its worst war for more than 70 years.

Mr Trump is alleged to have sought to prevent the democratic outcome of the 2020 Presidential election. If he and his allies did so, this was a disgraceful thing. If you believe that power in free societies is decided by votes, then you cannot support such a thing. Your own politics cease to matter. It goes to the very root of law and power.

So why did major Western nations accept without protest the violent, lawless overthrow of Ukraine’s elected President Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014? This shameful event, achieved by a yelling mob, was led by people who make Mr Trump’s supporters look like Greenpeace and who openly threatened violence if they did not get their way. Yanukovych is not very nice either. Few Ukrainian politicians are. But the fairness of his victory in the 2010 election is grudgingly accepted even by his opponents.

What is more, at the time of his overthrow, he had made a clear offer of early elections to test his mandate. The offer was endorsed and put to the Ukrainian opposition by a group of EU Foreign Ministers who had taken part in drawing it up and would have guaranteed it. Did the protesters think their faction would lose those early elections? Who can say? But it is beyond doubt that the Kiev parliament voted illegally to remove him. It clearly lacked the votes needed to do so under the constitution. It also failed to follow the procedures set out in that constitution.

Those who condone the removal have tried to excuse this blatantly lawless act on the grounds (among others) that Yanukovych had fled the country. But recent research has exploded this claim, too.

At the time of the Kiev putsch, Barack Obama’s White House did not condemn the violent removal of another elected President, or the Ukrainian parliament’s blatant defiance of its own constitution.

Instead it released a statement that praised the ‘constructive work’ done by the Ukrainian parliament. The US Ambassador in Kiev tweeted merrily that it was ‘a day for the history books’, which doesn’t seem very disapproving. Our own Foreign Secretary William Hague misled Parliament, saying incorrectly that Yanukovych had been removed ‘by the very large majorities required under the constitution’, and adding, quite unjustifiably: ‘It is wrong to question the legitimacy of the new authorities.’ There is, as yet, no sign of the Commons Privileges Committee taking this matter up. Lord Hague (as he now is) broke off contact with me after I drew his mistake to his attention.

The terrible eruption of large-scale violence in Ukraine, the growing danger of long-term European war, Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea, the splitting of the country and the terrible toll of death and destruction all began with the putsch against Yanukovych.

It is one of the most significant events in European history since the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in 1914. It is time we were honest about it, and time it received proper attention. It is at least as important as Donald Trump.

Noam Chomsky about isolating unvaccinated during the fake pandemic. by IlluvitarG4 in conspiracy

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

What's the address?

All you Russian puppets better stop mocking the American President who ended cancer as we know it by MeganDelacroix in WayOfTheBern

[–]CollisionResistance 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

He defeated cancer just like Ukraine defeated Russia.

[Senator Bernie Sanders] - "The Senate is debating an $886,000,000,000 defense budget. Here's why I intend to vote against it." by mzyps in WayOfTheBern

[–]CollisionResistance 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The cuckold comes out when he's most (not) needed

I love flaunting my armpit and pubic hair in tiny bikinis - trolls tell me I'm gross but I don't care by DrRaccoon in whatever

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

I can save her

John Kerry Says 'Under No Circumstances' Will US Pay Poor Nations for Climate Damages by CollisionResistance in WayOfTheBern

[–]CollisionResistance[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

If Trump said it, he'd be called racist nazi

Whether or not you agree with RFK Jr or not, it’s clear the “cancellation memo” went out to the media today. by [deleted] in WayOfTheBern

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

This realisation is sadly dawning on me. When he said he wants to break the CIA and shatter it into a thousand pieces, it was over for him.

Whether or not you agree with RFK Jr or not, it’s clear the “cancellation memo” went out to the media today. by [deleted] in WayOfTheBern

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

Man, I had high hopes from him. I knew he was a long shot candidate. And the dem party would find a way to shove him out.

But he was just too reckless and conspiratorial. Are bioweapons that target certain ethnic people, possible in the future? I'd guess so. Are they being developed? Maybe.

But he went on to associate a link between covid and a man-made deliberate bioweapon. You absolutely cannot talk about that if you have no evidence, especially if you're running for president.

NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is by CollisionResistance in WayOfTheBern

[–]CollisionResistance[S] 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Full article:

NATO leaders convening this week in Vilnius, Lithuania, have every reason to toast their success.

Only four years ago, on the eve of another summit, the organization looked to be in low water; in the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France, it was undergoing nothing short of “brain death.” Since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the situation has been transformed. As NATO plans to welcome Sweden into its ranks — Finland became a full-fledged member in April — and dispatch troops to reinforce its eastern flank, European Union allies are finally making good on long-deferred promises to increase military spending. Public opinion has followed suit. If Russia sought to divide Europe, President Biden could plausibly declare last spring that it had instead fully “NATO-ized” the continent.

This turnabout has understandably energized the alliance’s supporters. The statement of purpose from Jens Stoltenberg, its secretary general, that “the strength of NATO is the best possible tool we have to maintain peace and security” has never had more loyal adherents. Even critics of the organization — such as China hawks who see it as a distraction from the real threat in East Asia and restrainers who would prefer that Washington refocus on diplomatic solutions and problems at home — concede that NATO’s purpose is primarily the defense of Europe.

But NATO, from its origins, was never primarily concerned with aggregating military power. Fielding 100 divisions at its Cold War height, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact manpower, the organization could not be counted on to repel a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it set out to bind Western Europe to a far vaster project of a U.S.-led world order, in which American protection served as a lever to obtain concessions on other issues, like trade and monetary policy. In that mission, it has proved remarkably successful.

Many observers expected NATO to close shop after the collapse of its Cold War rival. But in the decade after 1989, the organization truly came into its own. NATO acted as a ratings agency for the European Union in Eastern Europe, declaring countries secure for development and investment. The organization pushed would-be partners to adhere to a liberal, pro-market creed, according to which — as President Bill Clinton’s national security adviser put it — “the pursuit of democratic institutions, the expansion of free markets” and “the promotion of collective security” marched in lock step. European military professionals and reform-minded elites formed a willing constituency, their campaigns boosted by NATO’s information apparatus.

When European populations proved too stubborn, or undesirably swayed by socialist or nationalist sentiments, Atlantic integration proceeded all the same. The Czech Republic was a telling case. Faced with a likely “no” vote in a referendum on joining the alliance in 1997, the secretary general and top NATO officials saw to it that the government in Prague simply dispense with the exercise; the country joined two years later. The new century brought more of the same, with an appropriate shift in emphasis. Coinciding with the global war on terrorism, the “big bang” expansion of 2004 — in which seven countries acceded — saw counterterrorism supersede democracy and human rights in alliance rhetoric. Stress on the need for liberalization and public sector reforms remained a constant.

In the realm of defense, the alliance was not as advertised. For decades, the United States has been the chief provider of weapons, logistics, air bases and battle plans. The war in Ukraine, for all the talk of Europe stepping up, has left that asymmetry essentially untouched. Tellingly, the scale of U.S. military aid — $47 billion over the first year of the conflict — is more than double that offered by European Union countries combined. European spending pledges may also turn out to be less impressive than they appear. More than a year after the German government publicized the creation of a special $110 billion fund for its armed forces, the bulk of the credits remain unused. In the meantime, German military commanders have said that they lack sufficient munitions for more than two days of high-intensity combat.

Whatever the levels of expenditure, it is remarkable how little military capability Europeans get for the outlays involved. Lack of coordination, as much as penny-pinching, hamstrings Europe’s ability to ensure its own security. By forbidding duplication of existing capabilities and prodding allies to accept niche roles, NATO has stymied the emergence of any semiautonomous European force capable of independent action. As for defense procurement, common standards for interoperability, coupled with the sheer size of the U.S. military-industrial sector and bureaucratic impediments in Brussels, favor American firms at the expense of their European competitors. The alliance, paradoxically, appears to have weakened allies’ ability to defend themselves.

Yet the paradox is only superficial. In fact, NATO is working exactly as it was designed by postwar U.S. planners, drawing Europe into a dependency on American power that reduces its room for maneuver. Far from a costly charity program, NATO secures American influence in Europe on the cheap. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe account for a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget — less than 6 percent by a recent estimate. And the war has only strengthened America’s hand. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, roughly half of European military spending went to American manufacturers. Surging demand has exacerbated this tendency as buyers rush to acquire tanks, combat aircraft and other weapons systems, locking into costly, multiyear contracts. Europe may be remilitarizing, but America is reaping the rewards.

In Ukraine, the pattern is clear. Washington will provide the military security, and its corporations will benefit from a bonanza of European armament orders, while Europeans will shoulder the cost of postwar reconstruction — something Germany is better poised to accomplish than the buildup of its military. The war also serves as a dress rehearsal for U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support cannot be so easily counted on. Limiting Beijing’s access to strategic technologies and promoting American industry are hardly European priorities, and severing European and Chinese trade is still difficult to imagine. Yet already there are signs that NATO is making headway in getting Europe to follow its lead in the theater. On the eve of a visit to Washington at the end of June, Germany’s defense minister duly advertised his awareness of “European responsibility for the Indo-Pacific” and the importance of “the rules-based international order” in the South China Sea.

No matter their ascendance, Atlanticists fret over support for the organization being undermined by disinformation and cybermeddling. They needn’t worry. Contested throughout the Cold War, NATO remained a subject of controversy into the 1990s, when the disappearance of its adversary encouraged thoughts of a new European security architecture. Today, dissent is less audible than ever before.

Left parties in Europe, historically critical of militarism and American power, have overwhelmingly enlisted in the defense of the West: The trajectory of the German Greens, from fierce opponents of nuclear weapons to a party seemingly willing to risk atomic war, is a particularly vivid illustration. Stateside, criticism of NATO focuses on the risks of overextending U.S. treaty obligations, not their underlying justification. The most successful alliance in history, gathering in celebration of itself, need not wait for its 75th anniversary next year to uncork the champagne.