The fact that Blinken isn't considered a madman where as DPRK leaders are and western nations aren't considered rogue states, it's just racism's pants falling down and exposing its shit stains.
Tony blinken seems like the third position of a human centipede of ideology, like an absolute yes man team player with no independent thoughts. He's like the refined cream of the professional managerial class. All that, or he's just extremely dumb.
The imbecile destroyed the "Unprovoked invasion" narrative last week too when he was bragging about his provocation resulting in a bigger NATO.
Am I missing something or is this tweet talking about a different person (Jens Stoltenberg)?
In other words, they're admitting that we're openly attacking Russia and just blaiming the Ukranians.
provides Intel on target locations
provides munitions
Here, you pull the trigger
The yanks told Saddam the same thing before he turned his internal shitshow towards Kuwait. Is this the turning point? Remember, that although Blinken is on record, the papers can pretend from tomorrow that it never happened and libs will be like:
Of course we need to send the marines in to Ukraine to preserve democracy. (Not too much democracy. We don't want the communist party to get too comfortable. But nice, polite, civil democracy, that's tolerant and not rude to ethnic cleaners.) Zelensky went too far. Who could've guessed that he would start bombing kindergartens in Russia after realising that sending high tech missiles against well defended military bases doesn't work after the 'high tech' parts have been removed so the Russians can't reverse engineer them? At least we can count on our friendly neighborhood US military to protect Ukrainians from their own government. They sure are lucky that my leaders are willing to make sacrifices to protect the world from harm. What's that? Yes, it was obvious to me from the beginning that Ukraine was governed by the most corrupt and evil totalitautharian government in history. Why yes, I always thought Putin was a fine chap; at times I thought he and I were the only ones to see that invading the Donbas was the right decision. Why do you ask?
Why yes, I always thought Putin was a fine chap; at times I thought he and I were the only ones to see that invading the Donbas was the right decision.
Nah, they'll never go this far. Admitting that a state-dep designated enemy may have been right about something, anything? Won't happen.
Exactly, highly unlikely. Especially as Russia needs to be the enemy because western corps want its resources. They will just find another pawn than Ukraine to fight Russia when this is finally over. There are tons of compradors in Post Soviet Eastern Europe that will oblige.
the US will team up with russia if the kissinger/mearschimer fuckwads gain power because they think they can turn russia against china
Yeah but I think they may have missed that chance, Putin would've been on board in the late 90's or early 00's but now he's sick of their bullshit
yeah he even asked to join NATO a couple decades ago
that ship has long since sailed
The people next in line behind Putin are rife with hypernationalist hawks. I highly doubt you're going to find someone who would both sell out to the west after all this and live long enough around their compatriots to accomplish much before getting couped.
Well if China goes serious about promoting socialism outside its borders, I can kinda see it happening. Bourgeoisie will always sell out if they feel threatened by the proletariat
I don't think China doing a full foreign policy 180 from non-interference to exporting revolution is on the cards in the near future. More likely the Russian bourgeoisie will just sell resources to China and angle for Chinese investments in Russia.
Yeah, they'll just continue to do that because it works for them. The Russian people can't rely on outside help to oust the oligarchs, they have to do it themselves.
That being said, I think the oligarchs were really hurt by Western sanctions which cut off their wealth stored in the West.
Makes me wonder if a post-war Ukrainian rump state might try and capture territory from Moldova or somewhere in order to pay off their massive debt to the west, and be actively encouraged by the west to do so only for the west to flip around on them and attack them for it.
Nah... That's too risky and would really make it complicated to make propaganda for the moral case for Novorossiya belonging to Ukraine. They'll just do austerity and structural adjustment at home instead, like they're supposed to.
True, I was drawing parallels to the Iran/Iraq war, but there really isn't much in common except the US prodding them.
Well comrades it seems we are approaching the apocalypse , it will be either Ukraine blown to dust or the humanity itself .
There's also the strong possibility of these new US missiles being ineffective Wonder Waffles like everything else up to this point. Remember those British Storm Shadow missiles that Ukraine used to hit Crimea? A few strikes and Russia homed in on where they were all stored. One exploded Ukrainian airforce base later and there haven't been any further Storm Shadow strikes.
I doubt climate change is a problem any longer. We will all have died in nuclear fire before.
ok so we're just going to casually announce we're going to war with Russia then?
US does not oppose the distribution of stupid prizes to those who play stupid games
Are you advocating for Russia to strike NATO countries for supplying weapons? That's basically advocating for nuclear war, pretty bad take overall.
No, it's perfectly fine for millions, hell, billions to die if it punishes Putin Bad Man.
Thats never really been grounds for war in the past.
Cuban Missile Crisis ring any bells? The crackers nearly destroyed the planet over it.
it is extremely counter-revolutionary to cheer on a proxy of the real evil empire (united states) and the nazis that fight for it
how can you say that america doesn't have a monopoly on violence when it has committed horrible acts of violence across the world for decades (invasion of iraq, afghanistan, etc) with zero repercussions? america has never answered for the thousands of civilians slain by their soldiers.
attacking one of the historic enemies of socialism is important for leftists. the united states has spent countless dollars and years fighting socialist movements both domestically and abroad. you cannot be a leftist without being vehemently against american hegemony.
millions of civilians, comrade. don't understate the death toll for the sake of this western chauvinist
We have gone far further than any of those.
Imagine if the Soviet Union gave Vietnam missiles and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war.
That is an entirely different scale of involvement that has never been tested against a large power before.
and explicit permission to strike US cities during the war
While also providing direct targeting data for it to happen
A better hypothetical would be if we invaded Mexico and the Russians gave them missiles to defend themselves.
Huh, I remember something almost exactly like this happening 61 years ago that was probably the closest the world has been to nuclear war.
Yep, the US was definitely at fault in the Cuban Missile Crisis for the missile placements in Europe and preparing to invade Cuba
What is the difference? In both cases one side is giving missiles for the explicit purpose of striking the rivals cities.
Distance is pointless when that capability only exists due to the missiles provided.
WW3 is a real threat. Imagine if Russian responds by blowing up the trains the missiles are on in Poland? Or striking a Western city in turn?
We are relying on the restraint of gangster led Russia to avoid nuclear war here ffs.
Are we debating the moral merit
No, you're bringing morality into this when it doesn't belong. You're confusing your feelings of moral justification for strategic justification.
Whether or not there's a substantial moral difference between invading a neighboring country and invading one on the other side of the planet is irrelevant in this scenario. If a geopolitical rival provides that invaded country with the means to launch missile strikes into your territory, the response will be the same.
Your tendency to base major decisions on feelings of moral outrage or self righteousness are not how war planning is or should be done. It reeks of the condescending assumption that it is the job of America to be world police, and punish the wrongdoers.
He just made a classic blunder, and got his hand caught in the cookie jar.
I'm sorry to have to break it to you, but it doesn't matter one iota whether or not Officer America thinks Putin has been caught being naughty. Your desire to punish him will always have to be weighed against the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.
I felt like that had to be said, because I think you psychos are still likely to think it's worth it.
hey comrade I like dunking on the libs too but this is a little ableist
You're not a capitalist, you're just a lib bootlicker
Capitalists don't waste their time defending capitalism online, they're busy doing drugs and pretending to work
Not generally. The capitalist class is a specific thing, it's not based on vibes.
Of course liberals support capitalism and cannot be socialist. The problem is that capitalist is simply not the word for someone who supports capitalism in the same way that socialist is the word for someone who supports socialism. It's an unintuitive language quirk, but not a unique one.
If we were to redefine capitalist to mean "everyone who supports capitalism" we need a new word for what capitalist means. And considering "everyone who supports capitalism" is a group consisting basically only of liberals and fascists, I don't see why such a word is necessary. 99% of the time you would use this redefined form of capitalist, liberal would be sufficient.
I suspect that you are a pig with shit on its balls
You're just going on giant hostile rants because you can't admit that you don't know the basic definition of the word capitalist and then accusing me of "gatekeeping" and "purity testing" because I do know the definition of that word
A capitalist is a member of the class which owns the means of production under capitalism. Your racist Vietnam vet neighbor John isn't a capitalist no matter how much boot he licks or how shitty he is.
Dang, you got us you master rhetoritician. There has never been a nuclear war so there's no reason to think there may ever be a nuclear war. Gosh you're smart. Especially when your arguments alternate between smug inanity and barely controlled frothing at the mouth.
