awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
That Guardian article is fun! "a woman in her 70s with bright red hair" is obviously mad. And de Gaulle's grandson descended from the hater of all things Anglo-Saxon. Love it.
On fear, not in itself, but racists typically fear the 'others', and traumatic fear-inducing incidents can trigger racism.Interesting (without any real surprises) article in the Guardian about Russian disinformation/propaganda on Ukraine. It seems to be working on the right wing in the US.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ht-republicans-ukraine?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
PS Is fear racist?
On fear, not in itself, but racists typically fear the 'others', and traumatic fear-inducing incidents can trigger racism.
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend! And in the US, foreign policy is still US centric (naturally, as in all countries) but the rhetoric around defence of freedom and democracy and the rule of law hides the facts, such as military drone use and "mission creep" increasing under Obama, and Gitmo still housing unconvicted (even by the "military tribunals" invented to suggest some form of legitimacy) renditioned prisoners. Plus the attempts to overthrow any democratically elected government that is not aligned with US interests.Really interesting piece sent to me by a Ukrainian friend explaining why she and others like her are suspicious of the main figurehead of the Russian opposition. This was something new to me:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/3/4/why-ukraine-is-wary-of-the-russian-opposition
The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend! And in the US, foreign policy is still US centric (naturally, as in all countries) but the rhetoric around defence of freedom and democracy and the rule of law hides the facts, such as military drone use and "mission creep" increasing under Obama, and Gitmo still housing unconvicted (even by the "military tribunals" invented to suggest some form of legitimacy) renditioned prisoners. Plus the attempts to overthrow any democratically elected government that is not aligned with US interests.
That applies to most of this thread! But the reasons for countries' support for Ukraine are relevant, and the US support is driven by their own interests, not any moral imperative. And as such can change in instant.None of that has anything to do with the case for militarily supporting Ukraine, it seems to me.
That applies to most of this thread! But the reasons for countries' support for Ukraine are relevant, and the US support is driven by their own interests, not any moral imperative. And as such can change in instant.
Not so. It is in the interests of many countries around the world to defeat imperialism, whether that is Russian or American. And the the US has a longer and more pervasive reach than Russia. And their propaganda machine (yes Hollywood, I am looking at you).It's in everybody's interests (apart from fascists') to defeat fascism.
BTW, I fully support supplying Ukraine with all the help we can give them, I just object to the US good, Russia bad rhetoric.
More beam and beam to be honest.It`s a bit beam and mote at the moment though*.
*What is a mote anyway?
I would suggest more "blatant or insidious".It`s a bit beam and mote at the moment though*.
*What is a mote anyway?
So the takeaway here is "but US."The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend! And in the US, foreign policy is still US centric (naturally, as in all countries) but the rhetoric around defence of freedom and democracy and the rule of law hides the facts, such as military drone use and "mission creep" increasing under Obama, and Gitmo still housing unconvicted (even by the "military tribunals" invented to suggest some form of legitimacy) renditioned prisoners. Plus the attempts to overthrow any democratically elected government that is not aligned with US interests.
Why?BTW, I fully support supplying Ukraine with all the help we can give them, I just object to the US good, Russia bad rhetoric.
Again, US good, Russia bad. The US is NOT on the good side, they are on their own side. For the moment they support Ukraine, but a change of president and they probably won't. Touting US moral superiority deserves no more than a hollow laugh.Why?
Once in a while, there is a clear moral division in world history and one camp is indeed on the bad side and another is on the good.
Don't "both side" this please.I was speaking to colleagues from Russia in meetings in Amsterdam yesterday. They made the point that the Russia state-controlled propaganda is absolutely overwhelming at the moment. There are no alternative voices anywhere and if you can't access the internet or Youtube, which is a substantial part of the population and all of the older generation, then you follow the Kremlin's line.
They noted that watching the same film footage, with Russia commentary and non-Russian commentary, diametrically opposite descriptions and interpretations were being applied. Little wonder that information you can trust is in short supply (perhaps on both sides).
Maybe you don't believe in good an evil. Or perhaps you believe in God, so intent is all that matters. Or you treat countries as individuals, also wrong.Again, US good, Russia bad. The US is NOT on the good side, they are on their own side. For the moment they support Ukraine, but a change of president and they probably won't. Touting US moral superiority deserves no more than a hollow laugh.
But why do I bother, blinkers are blinkers.
I would hope that Navalny's positions are evolving as a result of the "special operation", but he started from fairly nationalistic positions, including some that come across as quite right wing. The fact he might have been a credible opponent to Putin does not change that.Really interesting piece sent to me by a Ukrainian friend explaining why she and others like her are suspicious of the main figurehead of the Russian opposition. This was something new to me:
https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/3/4/why-ukraine-is-wary-of-the-russian-opposition