Thank God the Ukrainian military isn’t notoriously packed with Nazis! Because Biden has already given $75 billion to these people, and what do you call someone who gives money to Nazis?
Critics say the Kremlin is to blame for the rise in neo-nationalist movements, arguing they have been allowed to flourish in recent years.
Unlike many human rights activists and the country’s marginalized gay community, neo-nationalists have been allowed to hold rallies -- a right guaranteed by the Russian constitution.
Yet amid this crackdown, President Vladimir Putin’s government has also sought to forge its own state nationalism – and used elements of the ultra-nationalist agenda in its increasingly anti-Western, neo-conservative and isolationist ideology
many ultra-nationalists fled Russia – sometimes preferring to fight in eastern Ukraine on both sides of the conflict.
The largest players in the field of official, Kremlin-sanctioned nationalism are the deeply conservative and immensely powerful Russian Orthodox Church, the resurgent “armies” of Cossacks, czarist-era paramilitary forces, and right-wing parties.
the Kremlin cultivates ties with [far right groups] in the European Union to promote Moscow’s agenda. (...) representatives of Western far-right political parties, including neo-Nazi groups from Germany, Greece, and the UK, met for a Kremlin-funded conference in St Petersburg
That's great you're so easily willing to only read and absorb the inserted opionated editorial propaganda yet completely ignore the real reporting backed by material reality
Where are all the Nazis and nationalists in the military and government like you claimed. Tell me
Unlike Russia, who claims to be fighting Nazis while bringing in people who proudly wear their Nazi tattoos in both the public and private armies. And really, if you believe the hype that Russia is fighting against Nazis then you haven't been paying attention, and I have a bridge to sell you.
Just to be clear, the US hasn't provided any money. They've provided that much value in assets. Those assets already existed and we're sitting around in storage, which required money to maintain anyway. They were constructed with the idea of fighting both China and Russia at the same time. They are being used to fight Russia, which decreases the level of stock that needs to be maintained to fight both of those nations at once. It's quite possibly saving money, or at least not costing nearly the price tag that is said.
The US has been rather open about funding the entire Ukrainian government more or less since the war began (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/28/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-request-to-congress-for-additional-funding-to-support-ukraine/), which cannot be done entirely by sending them old military equipment. And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.
And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.
What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything? Either they're in the wrong for invading a sovereign country or not (although international politics is never about right and wrong, but it's about power). Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want? So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.
If we're removing the need to maintain old equipment, it's removing a cost. The cost was maintained to fight Russia, and this weakens Russia, so future costs are decreased. It saves money, right? It doesn't matter who is provoked. It doesn't change that fact. Sure, we're also sending aid and other things, but the goal is to create a good outcome for the US. Ukraine produces a lot of food, so securing them is in our benefit, along with any other agreements. You can disagree with this if you want, but that's international politics. Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience. I'd say remaining autonomous is a better outcome for them.
What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything?
Oh I don’t know, their ability to drive the human species to extinction? You can’t enjoy your treats if you’ve been incinerated in a nuclear blast 😉
Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want?
Remind me again which country developed these weapons first, and then used them against civilian targets when their enemy had already been begging to surrender for six months?
So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.
Did you know that history didn’t actually begin with the Ukraine War? Are you aware of how many governments the USA has overthrown worldwide since WW2?
and this weakens Russia
Weakness is when the enemy occupies a third of your territory and most of your productive capacity (Ukraine) and builds or strengthens alliances with other growing world powers (China, India, Brazil, and others). Weakness is when even liberals begin to understand the term “dedollarization,” which has the potential to be as devastating to the USA as a nuclear war.
It saves money, right?
Once again, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t save money when you’re dead. You would also save far more money if you took a break from deep-throating the capitalist boot.
Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience
Where did any Russian official announce that the total conquest of Ukraine was the goal of the Special Military Operation? The goal was the denazification of Ukraine and the protection of Russian-speaking populations in the east. So long as Nazis keep committing suicide by hurling themselves into Russian artillery bombardments, I don’t see how these goals are difficult to achieve.
You are implying I agree with US invasions, which I don't.
You're also implying that since the US did it Russia should be allowed to. Is it bad when the US does it or not? If the US doing it is bad, then Russia doing it must also be bad (unless you don't actually care about invasions, but just like Russia/don't like the US). Be consistent or your opinion doesn't have any value.
Thank God the Ukrainian military isn’t notoriously packed with Nazis! Because Biden has already given $75 billion to these people, and what do you call someone who gives money to Nazis?
Prescott Bush?
They didn't deny that. Both armies are packed with nationalists
Did you wake up this morning telling yourself that you were going to both-sides Nazism?
Could you give me a source or any proof that the Russian army is packed with Nazis?
They constantly crack down on fascists all the time ever since Putin was in office. Russia probably has the strongest anti Nazi culture of any country
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/24/world/europe/24iht-russia.html
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-medvedev-nationalism-idUSTRE70G4DP20110117
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2015/9/23/behind-russias-ultra-nationalist-crackdown
Very strong antifascist culture indeed.
That's great you're so easily willing to only read and absorb the inserted opionated editorial propaganda yet completely ignore the real reporting backed by material reality
Where are all the Nazis and nationalists in the military and government like you claimed. Tell me
Unlike Russia, who claims to be fighting Nazis while bringing in people who proudly wear their Nazi tattoos in both the public and private armies. And really, if you believe the hype that Russia is fighting against Nazis then you haven't been paying attention, and I have a bridge to sell you.
Where is the evidence for this? Rehabilitation of Nazism is against the law in Russia but encouraged in both the USA and Ukraine.
Just to be clear, the US hasn't provided any money. They've provided that much value in assets. Those assets already existed and we're sitting around in storage, which required money to maintain anyway. They were constructed with the idea of fighting both China and Russia at the same time. They are being used to fight Russia, which decreases the level of stock that needs to be maintained to fight both of those nations at once. It's quite possibly saving money, or at least not costing nearly the price tag that is said.
The US has been rather open about funding the entire Ukrainian government more or less since the war began (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/04/28/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-request-to-congress-for-additional-funding-to-support-ukraine/), which cannot be done entirely by sending them old military equipment. And the idea that we are saving money by provoking a nuclear power has got to be one of the craziest things I have read in quite some time.
It's largely arms and ammunition.
What does them having nuclear weapons have to do with anything? Either they're in the wrong for invading a sovereign country or not (although international politics is never about right and wrong, but it's about power). Just because they have nuclear weapons they should be allowed to do whatever they want? So the US should be free to invade any other nation without consequences too, right? What a joke.
If we're removing the need to maintain old equipment, it's removing a cost. The cost was maintained to fight Russia, and this weakens Russia, so future costs are decreased. It saves money, right? It doesn't matter who is provoked. It doesn't change that fact. Sure, we're also sending aid and other things, but the goal is to create a good outcome for the US. Ukraine produces a lot of food, so securing them is in our benefit, along with any other agreements. You can disagree with this if you want, but that's international politics. Russia wanted the same except with total annexation and subservience. I'd say remaining autonomous is a better outcome for them.
Oh I don’t know, their ability to drive the human species to extinction? You can’t enjoy your treats if you’ve been incinerated in a nuclear blast 😉
Remind me again which country developed these weapons first, and then used them against civilian targets when their enemy had already been begging to surrender for six months?
Did you know that history didn’t actually begin with the Ukraine War? Are you aware of how many governments the USA has overthrown worldwide since WW2?
Weakness is when the enemy occupies a third of your territory and most of your productive capacity (Ukraine) and builds or strengthens alliances with other growing world powers (China, India, Brazil, and others). Weakness is when even liberals begin to understand the term “dedollarization,” which has the potential to be as devastating to the USA as a nuclear war.
Once again, you don’t seem to understand that you can’t save money when you’re dead. You would also save far more money if you took a break from deep-throating the capitalist boot.
Where did any Russian official announce that the total conquest of Ukraine was the goal of the Special Military Operation? The goal was the denazification of Ukraine and the protection of Russian-speaking populations in the east. So long as Nazis keep committing suicide by hurling themselves into Russian artillery bombardments, I don’t see how these goals are difficult to achieve.
You are implying I agree with US invasions, which I don't.
You're also implying that since the US did it Russia should be allowed to. Is it bad when the US does it or not? If the US doing it is bad, then Russia doing it must also be bad (unless you don't actually care about invasions, but just like Russia/don't like the US). Be consistent or your opinion doesn't have any value.
Russia is "allowed" to do it for the same reason the US was "allowed" to invade Iraq.