HAVANA (AP) — Four Russian warships, including a nuclear-powered submarine, will arrive in Havana next week, Cuban officials said Thursday, citing “historically friendly relations”…
If you aren't going to engage with what we're saying regarding the necessity of what the Cuban government is doing, or even reckon with the historical realities of why Russia is the way it is, perhaps you would at least like to tell us what alternatives you see. Recall again this is all in the context of a world domimated by a hegemonic hyper-militarized state with nearly-unmitigated strike capacity that has proven itself eminently hostile to both governments.
I think there's a side in this discussion not reckoning with the historical reality of what Russia is, and it isn't me. It really, really, really isn't me.
If you think the presence of Russia in a place will stop the US from interfering and trying to overthrow or remove that regime, you have not been following along. A Russian ship isn't going to stop the US from embargoing them, it's not going to stop them from trying to overthrow the country if they want to. Russian troops or deals with Russia haven't stopped the US from doing so with any other latin american countries in the last decade.
I don't presume to know or be able to accurately strategize for the perfect thing to do. I don't even necessarily oppose whatever Cuba is doing, since I don't know what Cuba is planning against. I just know that relying on Russia has proven to not work, and I don't like their government. If the Cubans find this to be the best option that's obviously their choice, but I still won't critically support comrade hitler.
See, this is what it really comes down to, every time. You by your own admission have no idea where else Cuba might procure the things it needs to survive, but partnering with the Russians is verboten because you personally find it distasteful, regardless of the fact that no other willing assistance is forthcoming.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia? I agree that Russia is not the nation we would want it to be right now, but it’s hard to argue they are 100% bad when they’ve been fighting nato the last two years. Not to mention objectively speaking Putin has been dealing with the Russian oligarchs his entire career that were created by the west. It’s only since the war in Ukraine that Russia has had any real hold of their economy since 1991. I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia?
I don't know whether to support the move, I don't like the optics of speaking of your warm relations with a fascist regime, and I think it is generally a mistake to trust a fascist regime with your security.
I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now?
The obama state department before the Syrian civil war.
I think the ones lacking historical perpective isn't me., I think it's you guys. And given the immutable fact that I am right (always) and that I'm not the one in agreement with the US state department back when it wanted to have good Russian relations, I'm pretty confident in saying so.
Nobody's telling you not to argue for your point of view here, but this "I'm always right" bit doesn't make you sound confident, it makes you sound like a smug prick
Hi Correct I'm "There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments Were You Lie About The Sources You Vaguely Refer To Yet You Somehow Think It's Weird That You're Getting Met With Derision Despite This Shitty Behaviour Of Yours", nice to meet you.
There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't).
It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now?
I’m gonna need some proof on this because I’ve never seen or heard such a thing. Not to mention Putin was not able to fully deal with the Russian oligarchs (WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO WESTERN POWERS) until the US sanctioned them.
And given the immutable fact that I am right (always)
If you aren't going to engage with what we're saying regarding the necessity of what the Cuban government is doing, or even reckon with the historical realities of why Russia is the way it is, perhaps you would at least like to tell us what alternatives you see. Recall again this is all in the context of a world domimated by a hegemonic hyper-militarized state with nearly-unmitigated strike capacity that has proven itself eminently hostile to both governments.
I think there's a side in this discussion not reckoning with the historical reality of what Russia is, and it isn't me. It really, really, really isn't me.
If you think the presence of Russia in a place will stop the US from interfering and trying to overthrow or remove that regime, you have not been following along. A Russian ship isn't going to stop the US from embargoing them, it's not going to stop them from trying to overthrow the country if they want to. Russian troops or deals with Russia haven't stopped the US from doing so with any other latin american countries in the last decade.
I don't presume to know or be able to accurately strategize for the perfect thing to do. I don't even necessarily oppose whatever Cuba is doing, since I don't know what Cuba is planning against. I just know that relying on Russia has proven to not work, and I don't like their government. If the Cubans find this to be the best option that's obviously their choice, but I still won't critically support comrade hitler.
See, this is what it really comes down to, every time. You by your own admission have no idea where else Cuba might procure the things it needs to survive, but partnering with the Russians is verboten because you personally find it distasteful, regardless of the fact that no other willing assistance is forthcoming.
So you don’t like this move purely because of Russia? I agree that Russia is not the nation we would want it to be right now, but it’s hard to argue they are 100% bad when they’ve been fighting nato the last two years. Not to mention objectively speaking Putin has been dealing with the Russian oligarchs his entire career that were created by the west. It’s only since the war in Ukraine that Russia has had any real hold of their economy since 1991. I think you need some historical perspective on this because you sound exactly the same as any western liberal.
I don't know whether to support the move, I don't like the optics of speaking of your warm relations with a fascist regime, and I think it is generally a mistake to trust a fascist regime with your security.
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now? The obama state department before the Syrian civil war. I think the ones lacking historical perpective isn't me., I think it's you guys. And given the immutable fact that I am right (always) and that I'm not the one in agreement with the US state department back when it wanted to have good Russian relations, I'm pretty confident in saying so.
Nobody's telling you not to argue for your point of view here, but this "I'm always right" bit doesn't make you sound confident, it makes you sound like a smug prick
Given that I am in the company of a bunch of smug pricks, it would seem only natural to act this way.
Explains why you're the only one acting this way
I'm not though. You just disagree with me so others being smug pricks reads as just normal behavior to you.
I wasn't aware that people having clearly stated reasons and citations for the things they believe constituted smugness now
Call me when that happens
You're delusional
No, I'm "Correct".
Hi Correct I'm "There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments Were You Lie About The Sources You Vaguely Refer To Yet You Somehow Think It's Weird That You're Getting Met With Derision Despite This Shitty Behaviour Of Yours", nice to meet you.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
See this is were I refer you to my previous comment: You're delusional
Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.
No you're actually wrong and mad about that
No u
exactly
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
yes we're smug asf because you're not giving yourself any credibility to challenge that
I’m gonna need some proof on this because I’ve never seen or heard such a thing. Not to mention Putin was not able to fully deal with the Russian oligarchs (WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO WESTERN POWERS) until the US sanctioned them.
Very cute.