When US Conservatives support Russia you know things are a mess.

[acceptance]

First of all, goddamn this forum is wild.

Second of all, Russia and China are an economic threat to American global[ist] hegemony, not a security or geostrategic threat (NATO is the geostrategic threat to Russia and without just cause, mind you). The fearmongering from war-hawks - Republican and Democrat alike - is entirely baseless and has been for the last 30 years. Anyone who tells you that the US must war with Russia, China, or Iran wants to send your son to die while their children lounge around their third home in the Hamptons. Russians and Ukrainians (and Russians living in Ukraine fighting as Russians against Russia) are dying and their blood is not on Putin's hands, but on the hands of the CIA and NATO. Time to wake up and realise that you are living in the evil empire - propagandists are running your country too, not just Russia and China.

"filthy rightwing commies/autocrat"
1. Putin isn't a communist - he's a baptised Orthodox Christian who took the weight of one of the largest countries in the world - broken by communism - on his shoulders. Hate him or love him, Putin is a product of a very old, very powerful country that had all but entirely collapsed.
2. Autocracy might not be the greatest idea ever, but contrast it to democracy where most people are - let's be honest - fucking idiots. What's more likely, that all men are wise or that one single man will be? Terrible ideas will come to fruition because 51% of people assent to them regardless of whether it's right or wrong or a good idea.

Also I don't know where you extracted the impression that Carlson is a Putin sympathiser or suck up. It sounds like you should do some research on this topic before embarrassing yourself.

I will counter a few points.

1) An economic threat can eventually be a security threat as demonstrated by the US itself. China is probably the best example of a huge economy that is not out trying to conquer and rule the world, but with almost 1.5B people they probably have enough on their hands just keeping their own population at bay. So there is a case to be made — at least in the minds of US strategists — that it's better for the US to dominate than chance it with another superpower. This calculation assumes that any superpower will ultimately use their strength to impose their will on the rest of the world, which is probably not an unreasonable presupposition.

2) Ukrainian blood is on Russia's hands. They've done all the killing and destroying in Ukraine — no one else so far as I know. I can understand their motivations, but they are responsible for that. The US has not helped by enabling Ukraine to fight more and longer than they otherwise would have, but again, they didn't have to accept the aid and could have avoided the war by signaling no intent to join NATO had they wanted to.

3) Autocracy vs Democracy — I'm not a fan of either and furthermore it depends on the autocrat and depends on the people. The US is a democratic republic. But I agree though, the US population is hopeless and the government is corrupt.

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

https://apnews.com/article/congress-national-security-6a4497fc2d74ebbe2ab3483ba43e09b3

 

[acceptance]

https://apnews.com/article/congress-national-security-6a4497fc2d74ebbe2ab3483ba43e09b3

Of course. Now that these idiots have lost the Ukraine war, lost all credibility and moral standing with Israel in Gaza, and run up 33 trillion dollar debt which can never be repaid they need to find something new to whip us up into a frenzy so they can come save us and justify their "jobs." I mean who knows, maybe there is some kind of new threat but I never ever ever believe "Classified sources" and no details. And like COVID I'm sure they can whip up anything to be the end of the world. Or they can create the problem themselves in order to "save us" from it (IE more power, more taxpayer money and less freedom, peace and prosperity).

 

[NowYou'rePlayingWithPower]

 

[Peter]

I will counter a few points.

1) An economic threat can eventually be a security threat as demonstrated by the US itself. China is probably the best example of a huge economy that is not out trying to conquer and rule the world, but with almost 1.5B people they probably have enough on their hands just keeping their own population at bay. So there is a case to be made — at least in the minds of US strategists — that it's better for the US to dominate than chance it with another superpower. This calculation assumes that any superpower will ultimately use their strength to impose their will on the rest of the world, which is probably not an unreasonable presupposition.

2) Ukrainian blood is on Russia's hands. They've done all the killing and destroying in Ukraine — no one else so far as I know. I can understand their motivations, but they are responsible for that. The US has not helped by enabling Ukraine to fight more and longer than they otherwise would have, but again, they didn't have to accept the aid and could have avoided the war by signaling no intent to join NATO had they wanted to.

3) Autocracy vs Democracy — I'm not a fan of either and furthermore it depends on the autocrat and depends on the people. The US is a democratic republic. But I agree though, the US population is hopeless and the government is corrupt.

Well met.

1) All empires must fall, especially when they rot like American empire has. It has to burn in order for a new one to grow. It has to be humbled. I agree that it's not unreasonable to expect empires to rise to dominate, but this cannot serve as the justification for maintaining US hegemony in its current form, especially when certain lobbyist/special interest groups from certain countries in the Middle East have an alarming amount of control over US foreign policy.

2) When you have the CIA going through the back door, orchestrating colour revolutions (as they've done in many other countries across the world), turning Ukraine into a proxy for NATO interests, thus antagonising Russia in the same way they have done for the last 30+ years, I stand by what I said, but I respect your difference perspective. I think we both appreciate the nuances of it all.

3) Agreed.

 

[Arch Stanton]

When you have the CIA going through the back door

 

[acceptance]

2) When you have the CIA going through the back door, orchestrating colour revolutions (as they've done in many other countries across the world), turning Ukraine into a proxy for NATO interests, thus antagonising Russia in the same way they have done for the last 30+ years, I stand by what I said, but I respect your difference perspective. I think we both appreciate the nuances of it all.

Look, I understand Russia's invasion from a strategic, realpolitik perspective. And I agree that the US/CIA has been a destabilizing, harmful force around the world and that Russia in particular has been "Provoked." And it can be said that by fomenting political unrest, installing puppet politicians and so on this has contributed to conflict. But I still think it's important to remember that apart from internal violence against Russians in Eastern Ukraine — which I guess could support a case for legal military intervention — Russia initiated the invasion/war (Which they call a "special military operation"), and they are responsible for that. In other words they are not responding in self-defense to an imminent threat or actual military act by Ukraine but rather they are acting strategically and methodically.

I think it's important to correctly attribute legal responsibility to actors that are actually responsible for acts that they could have otherwise chosen not to do. I am arguing this because this loose attribution of responsibility can be "weaponized" by authoritarians against a domestic population. I'm not sure where you're from, but here in the US there has been a move to censor speech on the grounds that speech and ideas can "cause" people to act violently. This will only lead to all kinds of abuses if this line of thought is carried to it's logical conclusion. So it's a philosophical distinction perhaps, but I think it's important. But maybe I'm missing some nuance of what you're saying, or that perhaps you're not referring to legal accountability but moral/ethical?

 

[rsm]