Russia-Ukraine war and related tensions Megathread

[Red Velvet]

Lol I am not sure what different would be if Trump was president?

Don’t get me wrong, Biden is a joke no one takes seriously, but Trump instability is what led to the west losing its international credibility and started giving an opening for more people to feel comfortable about confronting it directly.

His likely victory in 2024 would cement the Western downfall and solidify “the new era” of power shift because not even western allies want to live in a Trump-led world. Not that Biden is a strong alternative for the democrats either, but they made their choice of picking any random weirdo just to substitute Trump instead of having an actual plan of strengthening the nation.

US needs to fix its house first to gain credibility back regarding international issues. Otherwise the trend will just keep deepening itself. Trump is the opposite of that.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it. The condescension towards Americans is precisely of opinions like you’re pushing, which implicitly are disrespectful to Brazil as a sovereign independent country.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it. The condescension towards Americans is precisely of opinions like you’re pushing, which implicitly are disrespectful to Brazil as a sovereign independent country.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

You literally compared US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq for the sake of what aboutism. The former is absurd and the later, while an unjust invasion wasn’t a war of territorial conquest and both were pariah stare dictatorships not flawed democracies. And then you tried a weak backup with hur dur racism.

The original qualification for joining the UN was declaring war on the Axis and we have only one real rule of conduct, no wars of conquest.
If your position is that you don’t want to give a damn about anything that happens outside of the Lusophone/Hispanophone world, just say that and don’t act like that gives you a moral high ground.

LMAO, how not to be condescending to that type of thinking? So you can invade countries for regime change? What the hell is Putin trying to do when he goes crazy trying to take Zelensky out to put a pro-Russian government?

US thinking says it’s entitled to invade countries which they see as “authoritarian”. Can’t you see that’s the same argument of Putin when he acts he can invade Ukraine because of “neonazi” presence?

It’s all different imperialism justifications to create a false sense of moral reasoning so that useful morons can be pushed to believe you’re spreading freedom and keep believing in these idiotic hero vs villain fairytales that stimulate national pride.

There are no heroes anywhere, wake up. We’re adults here, at least I hope so. All there is are different countries looking out for their interests. Your fairytales got lost in XX century and the Bush wars were the beginning of their burial.

[Red Velvet]

Bolsonaro is not on Russia's side. He just refuses to take Ukraine's side.
Maduro on the other hand...

‘Neutral’ and ‘On Russia’s side’ is quite a fine distinction these days.

Only because the Western narrative decided to force places that aren’t involved with this to pick a side.

Brazil has long been a neutral country, that’s our main diplomatic approach since the 90s. We don’t want enemies. Bolsonaro adopting neutral stance, against these harsh sanctions against Russia, is something that even a leftist government would support because it’s close to a consensus approach:

https://www.twitter.com/BrazilBrian/status/1498370398496477191
At least on this some level of long-term consistency is maintained although they messed on the UN vote. Follows neutrality position and helps to not isolate Russia even more. Literally the first thing this government does in almost 4 years that isn’t completely dumb and a reason of shame. This isn’t our conflict and it’s wrong to take any side, stay friends with both US and Russia in order to find a middle ground solution.

Especially when there’s the risk of nuclear conflict, it’s scary how some people here want to escalate things so aggressively when them and their countries are not even involved on this.

Well then, under your logic Brazil should follow the same stance if the U.S. invaded, say, Cuba?

I somehow doubt that would be the case, tankie.

Neither USA or RUSSIA or CHINA. Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina are Latin American neighbors and therefore ARE our problem. Other places far away are not.

If everyone who doesn’t side with your cause is a “tankie” you will find not much sympathy here, as the mainstream forces here on both right and left support neutrality.

If you don’t respect or sympathize with the Latin American background and perspective, there’s not much reason for people to try to look through the Eastern European one either.

The Ukrainian cause is valid, but there’s a whole context behind it that relates to each place differently. And that’s okay.

You won’t find this “shame rhetoric forcing into submission to what I want” to work that much here within our diplomacy or with me. I favor respectful debates.

I’m exposing the hypocrisy of your position. I specifically chose Cuba because it is closer to the U.S. than Brazil and thus by the standards you set Brazil should be neutral because Cuba is more a neighbor of the U.S. than of Brazil. If you really oppose countries invading other countries to annex them de jure or de facto, then you should react the same way to identical scenarios, should you not?

But of course you won’t, because your stance isn’t about either morality or legality. It’s about anti-Westernism and especially anti-Americanism above all other considerations. You can try to cloak that in rubric about ‘the Latin American viewpoint’ all you want, but those are just window dressing to cover your less-than-scrupulous neutrality.

I call you and those like you tankies because that’s what you are.
https://twitter.com/kasparov63/status/1496871285917470720?s=21
You are known in part by the company you keep. You actually going to ‘both sides’ this? Have you checked what the various human rights organizations of the world are saying?

If you want a respectful debate, try not defending a morally vacuous and hypocritical position.

It’s not hypocritical at all, it’s having an uniform moral ruler and not being submissive towards white supremacy rule that treats some places as more relevant than others. When they are not.

Brazil didn’t try to isolate USA when it invaded non-white countries like Iraq and Afghanistan and so it won’t do the same against Russia. Consistency check.

Brazil doesn’t approve of Ukraine invasion just as it doesn’t approve of wars done by western countries on the Middle East or Asia, which are normalized as acceptable by your media. Consistency check.

Your proposal to leave a neutral position when something that is not of our concern but ONLY when it happens against an European/Western territory but not doing the same when those places are the aggressors and invaders. THAT would be a big contradiction.

Ukraine is a sovereign country just like Iraq, Palestine, Yemen are. And it deserves to have that respected. But to have an uniform moral ruler in the geopolitical context would mean either picking a fight with EVERYONE or NOBODY.

To pick a fight with everyone would be stupid as hell, so we don’t antagonize US, Russia or anyone for stuff that isn’t related to us. That’s why the “fight nobody” neutral stance is embraced all across ideological boards.

It must be distressing to hear we don’t consider you or anyone as “the big hero” in the geopolitical stage, but that’s just a self-congratulatory delusion you chose to feed yourself on. There are no saints anywhere and US absolutely has no bigger moral ruler than the one that Brazil, a peaceful country, has.

Ah, there’s that “whataboutism” I was waiting for! Seriously, it’s like you’re determined to check every tankie box on a form. And mentioning “white supremacy” too! Got to get that in there somehow I guess. Wait, so opposing Russia’s invasion is ‘white supremacy’ now? That’s wild.

Oh, you think it was wrong for the U.S. to go into Afghanistan?! God damn you hate the U.S. no matter what, don’t you? Thanks for providing evidence of your guiding principle! And you actually think racism was why the U.S. went into both Afghanistan and Iraq? We could’ve filled those needs much closer to home. There were motives both divine and devilish behind the U.S.’ actions - well, the revealed hidden documents suggest there wasn’t a plan of any stripe involved because that would require having enough competence to organize one - but in neither case was annexation a thing. But this is what you want, isn’t it, to deflect from your lack of consistency by changing the topic?

You do realize Iran is the primary force behind Yemen’s descent into civil war? They backed the Houthis and the former tyrant who had been overthrown by a popular uprising’s return to power. The Saudis and the rest became involved after that.

And just earlier today I read in the Brazilian election thread that support for condemning Russia is also “embraced all across ideological boards”. Funny how you didn’t mention that.

And there’s your last paragraph where you just couldn’t help yourself from an anti-American rant! Thanks for confirming again that your guiding principle is anti-Americanism above everything else. Your position can be argued for from a realpolitik position, but has no basis in morality, legality, or consistency.

It’s been amazing watching the true colors of the tankies worldwide get revealed.

You simply cannot stop thinking of Brazilian policy being guided by principles instead because you don’t understand how the world is so much more than this US-Russia logic you clearly believe in.

This may come across as news, but not everything is about the US. I didn’t even relate Yemen to US in my post for example, but you automatically related to it for example.

That’s because you cannot see other countries existence outside from a US perspective only. It’s quite sad, but not surprising. Shows how you don’t respect other places independence of positions when they’re not automatically aligned with what US is for.

Latin America for you must be the pure simplicity of:

Alligned with US position = zzzzzz, who are these people again?

Neutral or Non-alligned with US position = OMG why they HATE us so much and try to be contrarians? Anti-American sentiment!!!

Move on, we just don’t take this BS around here seriously. But feel free to stay comfortable in your own bubble.

Your strawman is so badly constructed I’m amazed you have the gall to put it up. And you telling me to move to move on is hysterical given you haven’t refuted any, much less all, of my arguments, your position isn’t anywhere near the predominant one in this thread, this board, or this forum. You’re the one that’s in a bubble, tankie.

Of course it isn’t, never thought it was, this board is mostly Americans. It’s closer to your bubble than mine.

You on the other hand needs to bring this as a reasoning that “backs you up” because you don’t know how to properly refute what I said. It’s really two weights, two measures logic.

I don’t need to lose time writing long-ass posts refuting fairytales, you in your conscience already knows what I’m saying is right, behind all this silly pride facade.

Have a good night.

[Red Velvet]

One thing which I've recently been noting is how much we are being taken for a ride by our "allies" in the Middle East, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but also Israel. It's well known that we basically give Israel unconditional geopolitical support despite what I'd characterize as pretty heinous crimes in occupied Palestine, but we also have given the Saudis aid in their murderous campaigns in Yemen and Syria as well as their broader conflict in Iran, and what do we now have to show for it? All three of them hedging their bets on a 19th-century style imperialist invasion, and Saudi Arabia can't even bring itself to increase oil production? While Iran has been pushed firmly into the Russian sphere? What a disaster.

It’s not just Middle-East countries, but Global South in general that is neutral at this conflict. Reasonably so.

India has ties with US and is a democratic country and it still is positioning with neutrality. This is an European war, countries like Israel and those others, don’t think it’s something that concerns them to get involved.

[Red Velvet]

Another development of this war: US will be meeting with the Maduro Venezuelan government for first time since crisis started, with the goal of pushing them away from Russia and preventing new Cuban missile crisis.

Basically, Guaidó is now unemployed lol

I wonder how this recognition of Maduro as the real leader of Venezuela will hurt Democrats electorally domestically, especially in places like Florida. Tbh, they should have given up on that devilish state a long ago and invested in more friendly ones where they have better chances of stealing. Even Texas >> Florida.

[Red Velvet]

This entire episode of USA going to Iran and Venezuela to ask them to pump more gas and Australia asking PRC to get Russia to back down (Australia-PRC relationships have been in the dumps for a few years now) make the collective West look like a bunch of high school cheerleaders that have no problem ostracizing those they feel that are social inferiors but when they need those they have ostracizing having no problems just demanding they fall in line because they assume that everyone wants to hang out with the cheerleaders.  I am not saying they are necessary wrong in their reading of the social positions but more of a comment on their actions and the assumptions they have of the world.

It’s kinda hilarious tbh. They see themselves like a version of Rambo but they’re way closer to a Karen.

[Red Velvet]

Back to the low effort non sequitur responses again? Who takes the W or L is still to be decided; I will say that if the US and China end up in a trade war, the US will suffer historic inflation and supply shortages among other economic consequences and the Democrats will be utterly destroyed in November.

Why do you argue so much with the westerners here? lol

There’s never going to be any type productive discussion because it’s a direct conflict of interests, different sides and backgrounds. It’s better to talk about this between people closer, although I can understand the importance of establishing a clear international stance that makes clear the position to others.

Their position here is against the interests of developing countries in general and yours is against the West. There’s never going to be a common ground because each has the other as an enemy/adversary. That’s how they see you and that’s how you see them as well, let’s be real.

Now, regarding what will come out of this war and who will be prejudiced more on the long term, no one knows yet. What it has done is to divide more clearly the line between West vs Developing World and the consequences of that are still to be seen in the years to come.

[Red Velvet]

Although not much of a division within Latin America and the Caribbean:

But do go on about the West. Fascists of a feather flock together and all that.

You mean condemning Russian invasion? That’s just everyone’s sane position. Even China doesn’t agree with it even if they won’t directly oppose Russia and will rather hide behind neutrality.

One very different thing is supporting this articulation of full isolation of a country and realistically, you cannot deny there isn’t a major geographical divide shaping up. Forget China, there’s also:

- India is working for an alternative exchange way to go around western sanctions
- South Africa publicly saying the war is NATO’s fault
- Brazil joined the countries above in asking for Russia’s claim of US Biological labs to be investigated and wanting Russia partnership for its nuclear subs projects
- Saudi Arabia (!!!!) studying to make payments to Russia in Chinese coin. Even Israel, seen as western ally, behaved more like Iran in this issue lol
- Mexico, Argentina and others positioning against the international institutions being kidnapped to propel an isolation of Russia. And those all are places which condemned the invasion when it started, as you said.

The only non-Anglo and non-European countries that are aligning are Japan and South Korea. You can’t talk about “international community united” without almost all of Asia, all of Africa and Latin America. It’s a divide being stimulated that simply isn’t good for anyone, if you don’t understand the possible consequences.

[Red Velvet]

Back to the low effort non sequitur responses again? Who takes the W or L is still to be decided; I will say that if the US and China end up in a trade war, the US will suffer historic inflation and supply shortages among other economic consequences and the Democrats will be utterly destroyed in November.

Why do you argue so much with the westerners here? lol

There’s never going to be any type productive discussion because it’s a direct conflict of interests, different sides and backgrounds. It’s better to talk about this between people closer, although I can understand the importance of establishing a clear international stance that makes clear the position to others.

Their position here is against the interests of developing countries in general and yours is against the West. There’s never going to be a common ground because each has the other as an enemy/adversary. That’s how they see you and that’s how you see them as well, let’s be real.

Now, regarding what will come out of this war and who will be prejudiced more on the long term, no one knows yet. What it has done is to divide more clearly the line between West vs Developing World and the consequences of that are still to be seen in the years to come.

Hmm…seems more like a division within the Developing World.

Although not much of a division within Latin America and the Caribbean:

Much to unpack from the UNGA vote, but…

Latin America and the Caribbean:
Yes: 28
Antigua & Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,
Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay.

Abstain or Cowards who didn’t vote at all to hide their Abstain: 5
Bolivia (finally made up their damn minds), Cuba, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela.

85% versus 15%.

I believe there’s a Latin American and the Caribbean consensus on this.

But do go on about the West. Fascists of a feather flock together and all that.

And since you like % so much…



This is Brazilians opinion on the matter btw. Even if most sympathize with Ukraine being invaded and disagree with the war, they still defend neutrality on the matter lol

And it’s a bipartisanship position as evidenced by the poll above. 91% of Bolsonaro voters agree with his neutrality, but also 70% of Lula voters lol. And this isn’t surprising position at all.

Anyway, have fun screaming here in your bubble, because I’m not going to be like compcomp and argue with people whose sympathy is limited to specific locations. There was no coordinated pressure to isolate US for invading Iraq, there shouldn’t be one for Russia either. Everyone knows the reasons behind on WHY this is happening just in this case, people aren’t stupid.

[Red Velvet]

It’s not geographic, it’s based mostly on power tier levels in the world mixed with the autocratic-democratic ideological divide. Second-tier powers want to weaken the first-tier power so they can do whatever they want to their neighbors. This appears to override considerations of democracy and autocracy because power corrupts and all that.*

Lol that’s the typical “bringing freedom and democracy to the savages” world police exceptionalism that it’s pointless to argue with. Not that different from Putin fabricating moral argument bs that validates HIS interventions with the “denazification” thing.

As if the West was democratic pinnacle to act like that, the main difference there is that corruption is sold as “entrepreneurship” and elections with two parties only are treated as example to others to follow. You’re not changing your mind and neither am I on this.

Regarding the Brazilian poll, that’s not the “Bolsonaro” or “Lula” view. Neutrality is a consensus. The “Nem-Nem” voters are people who will vote for other options and they’re 73% so… not an ideological thing at all. You can bet the Lula voter would be even higher than 70% if it wasn’t Bolsonaro pushing for neutrality.

Again, that doesn’t mean support for Russia at all (I think people sympathize with Ukraine), but show that people disagree with taking a position and not just buying the simplistic good vs evil narrative. NYT already reported on this geographic divide:

In some parts of the world, the war in Ukraine seems justified

And yes, your bubble, everyone should always realize they’re in one and their views are related to many different backgrounds and experiences.

But cool that you mention that attempts to isolate US for Iraq war failed while this one went unquestioned for a reason. Thanks for backing my point?

[Red Velvet]

It’s not geographic, it’s based mostly on power tier levels in the world mixed with the autocratic-democratic ideological divide. Second-tier powers want to weaken the first-tier power so they can do whatever they want to their neighbors. This appears to override considerations of democracy and autocracy because power corrupts and all that.*

Lol that’s the typical “bringing freedom and democracy to the savages” world police exceptionalism that it’s pointless to argue with. Not that different from Putin fabricating moral argument bs that validates HIS interventions with the “denazification” thing.

As if the West was democratic pinnacle to act like that, the main difference there is that corruption is sold as “entrepreneurship” and elections with two parties only are treated as example to others to follow. You’re not changing your mind and neither am I on this.

Regarding the Brazilian poll, that’s not the “Bolsonaro” or “Lula” view. Neutrality is a consensus. The “Nem-Nem” voters are people who will vote for other options and they’re 73% so… not an ideological thing at all. You can bet the Lula voter would be even higher than 70% if it wasn’t Bolsonaro pushing for neutrality.

Again, that doesn’t mean support for Russia at all (I think people sympathize with Ukraine), but show that people disagree with taking a position and not just buying the simplistic good vs evil narrative. NYT already reported on this geographic divide:

In some parts of the world, the war in Ukraine seems justified

And yes, your bubble, everyone should always realize they’re in one and their views are related to many different backgrounds and experiences.

But cool that you mention that attempts to isolate US for Iraq war failed while this one went unquestioned for a reason. Thanks for backing my point?

Believe it or not, Red Velvet, I actually do agree with many of your part of the world's historical and moral claims against my country. I support several leftist governments, that of Bolivia for example, that haven't exactly been profiles in courage on the Russia-Ukraine situation. I understand very well why people in the Global South would reflexively distrust shrill NATO and EU narratives about muh freedumb and in general I don't blame people for that.

But we, on this forum, frankly, know better, and I have absolutely no patience for moral relativism, whataboutery, or any other reason you or compucomp or anybody else on the Talk Secular Elections US Atlas Forum Blog has for excusing or minimizing the Russian government and military's actions. The fact that the world failed to hold the US to account for its actions in Iraq does not mean that the world should choose not to hold Russia to account for its actions in Ukraine out of some perverse sense of naïve fairness. Double standards should be resolved in favor of consistent justice, not consistent injustice. The direct equivalency that you draw between Russia launching an unprovoked invasion of Ukraine and other world powers contemplating intervening to expunge that invasion is particularly obscene, and indicates very bad things about your ability to tell the difference between sincere principled considerations and half-baked knee-jerk resentments and thought-terminating clichés about the United States being both the Main Character and the Bad Guy.

I definitely agree with that, but I also wasn’t born yesterday to believe that this consistency of justice will magically suddenly start now with Ukraine. I know better too, my parents generation lived it. If we’re being honest, everyone “knows” war is finally bad now only because of who’s doing it. Because otherwise, western propaganda is all about selling why war is necessary or justifiable.

And the correlation of “bringing freedom” wasn’t about this Ukraine situation at all, but how your part of the world talks about third world as undemocratic savages to justify wars, which is what WMS used to differentiate wars in Iraq as more justifiable than this one.

Ideally, I would agree with what you propose. But then reality hits when you realize how it’s competition driving these relations and on deciding who is the “good” and the “bad”. International liberalism in foreign relations, with this cooperation between nations, is extremely one-sided in practice. That’s when you start paying more attention to the realist thinkers on these matters of international relations, because their analysis comes from a practical position.

And I don’t believe in any villains or heroes, but I do believe in a natural conflict of interests in which there’s an unbalance of power and “justice”. Why would it be in some places interest to get involved in a conflict in another far away place for this argument of international cooperation when they know it’s one-sided bullsh**t.

How would you lecture a country like Libya that foreign interventions and wars need to be condemned and that they MUST position themselves, for example? That’s the logic behind third-worldism. If China, Russia, or anyone else were to lecture some neighbors for having non-aligned neutral stance, I would also find it ridiculous. If I were Ukrainian for example, I wouldn’t buy that. And that’s exactly what they’re doing when refusing to bow to Russia lol.

So why exactly places far away have to position themselves? When we already established these places are mostly “on the other side” of the double standards you mentioned?

You think about that and you will understand better why it’s only the West + Japan/South Korea/Taiwan sanctioning Russia. It’s not my opinion, it’s what it’s happening, with some of the leaders, including South African president, blaming this on NATO. They know it’s not on their interests to get involved in this and the fake moral argument is something less people buy nowadays.

“Oh but you say that, you are validating other places interventions”. No, because 1) I am personally against what Russia is doing in Ukraine, although I defend neutrality. 2) These places already feel entitled to war and interventions regardless of whatever I think lol. Look at WMS post and you get the idea war is more justifiable when done against undemocratic savages. And who gets to decide that? Because I don’t believe most of the West is example of democracy or anticorruption.

If anything a lot of what I understand as corruption in my country is legalized as “lobby” in some certain places.

[Red Velvet]

Interesting thread. Whenever this ends, unless Russia repents in the same way that Germany eventually did after the Second World War, the Ukrainian hate towards Russia will last generations.
https://twitter.com/NeilPHauer/status/1505265888563453959?s=20&t=u_0KwyStN12...

As for the Russia/Germany comparisons people maybe need to understand that (West) German society had for a long time been in denial over the Nazi era and largely wanted to sweep it under the rug until the student protests of 1968 began. This was the point when a younger generation started to question why their parents were such ignorant sh**theads about it. And that was merely the beginning, since the airing of the American miniseries Holocaust on German television in early 1979 and the impact on the public debate it had is nowadays still considered a major cultural watershed moment for Germany's post-war society.

There exist some parallels to present-day Russia, namely that the 18-29 age bracket in that country is reportedly the least supportive of the Ukraine invasion, while older Russians tend to be very supportive of Putin policies. So far this polarization hasn't yet led to Russia's own version of 1968. Recent peace protests in the country could be seen as an early equivalent to it. Whether it so far failed to unfold a similar impact because of Russian government oppression or because Russian society just isnt't "there" yet, remains to be seen.

East Germany is also an example for a society where "1968" simply didn't happen due it being surpressed under an authoritarian system, leading to a post-communist society in the 1990s and onwards where nationalism was and is far more socially accepted than in former West Germany with its deeper democratic tradition. Then again, young East Germans didn't have the Internet back in 1968, a factor that could change things in Russia now...

There’s also how what you’re describing happened more than 20 years after the fact in an already well-established democratic society.

Meanwhile Putin is a strongman in power who still has decent approval because of Russians perception that he “put the country in its feet again”. I don’t think it’s something that will shift now or in the next 20 years, unless Putin is ousted soon and there’s a (successful) adaptation to liberal democracy model. Which sounds very unlikely imo.

Most Russians I heard think of the 90s as a terrible era for the country in the economic sense, the way they talk make it sound like they lived in misery. And that’s exactly the decade international community holds as the best decade for Russia that they should go back to, as they were more liberal and open times.

It wouldn’t surprise me if there’s a fear from some people of more liberalization, correlating that to their experience from the 90s, while Putin is perceived as a “safe place” for stability. Especially for people who lived through it.

There’s always a difference between what locals and the world take into consideration as priorities. Average people only care to afford their domestic necessities and have a decent quality of life. If they think other matters will get in the way of that, they are open to rationalize everything.

Don’t know exactly how it’s in Russia but that’s a behavior I think is universal.

[Red Velvet]

Speaking of support for an alternative to the Western view on the war, here's Israeli PM Bennett's comments on the issue today:

On Monday, Israel sent an aid delegation to Ukraine to establish a field hospital. While at the airport to see the delegation off, Bennett gave a few remarks, saying Israel was "managing this unfortunate crisis with sensitivity, generosity and responsibility, while maintaining a balance between the various factors – and they are complex."

Hm... sounds similar to Chinese ambassador to the USA Qin Gang yesterday on CBS News?

AMB. QIN: China makes its observation and conclusion based independently- based on the merits of the matter itself. On the one hand, we uphold–

MARGARET BRENNAN: The United Nations Secretary General said Russia invaded–

AMB. QIN: we uphold– We uphold. On the one hand, China upholds the U.N. purposes and -- and the principles, including that- the respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, including Ukraine. On the other hand, we do see that there- there is a complexity in the history of the Ukraine issue. And we are–

To be fair, Israeli FM Yair Lapid did say that Israel will not become "route to bypass sanctions imposed on Russia by the United States and other Western countries.” So Israel's stance is a bit more pro-Western than China's. I guess all those years of unconditional support and billions (trillions?) of aid bought you something? LOL?

I've been calling them out for over a decade. You can thank the Ray Goldfields and Parrotguys of the world for trying to shut down debate at every turn by shouting "pogrom" and "blood libel" at the tamest criticism.

Israel is a terrible friend to America.

China doesn't have a mob of Russian troops on its borders, ready to give the Syrians the order to attack at the moment's notice. America helped to put Israel in that situation, and Israel has still managed to give far more per capita than the United States.

The smears from people like Kinzinger are genuinely disgusting, and seeing who the OP you're quoting is should give away just how bad-faith this whole line of conversation is.

Um.... what? China has a 4000 km border with Russia, and we have had our border disputes and wars in the past? I don't know how many troops Russia has our border but I'd guess it's on the order of tens or hundreds of thousands.

Why is it not a legitimate point of discussion when Israel refuses to follow the USA on what you claim is a clear moral issue of right vs wrong, freedom vs tyranny, etc? A strong ally, a liberal democracy, and their leader puts out a statement that is indistinguishable from one by the Chinese ambassador? Maybe this should be a big hint that many do not see the Ukraine-Russia issue as you portray, but instead as PM Bennett and Ambassador Qin put it, "complex"?

The Israel response to this war is very telling, we are living in whole new world now and it’s great. If the country that is seen as the #1  “non-western” US friend still refuses to align and mentions their independence and sovereignty when talking about it, why would others even care to align?

Meanwhile in the US if someone dares to suggest about not aligning with Israel on anything, they will rather fight between themselves and smear/cancel other compatriots before even entertaining the possibility as reasonable position lolol

It’s the same people from always who refuse to accept the current scenario and that there will be a conflict or a climax because of all this in the future. Defenders of multipolar world should be talking about dropping the US dollar more incisively with these new developments on Russia.

Russia survival will be quite the test, but they prepared for this scenario since 2014, shifting the attention away from the West and into the East and the Global South. How Russia deals with this will be extremely telling on how “necessary” the west centrality is for other countries.

Because the final consequences of this will come down to “Russia being isolated from the world” or “The West isolating itself from the world”. It’s very critical, they HAVE to destroy Russia to prove a point otherwise they look extremely weak and vulnerable for choosing the path of going all in like they’re going now.

Ideally, it’s the time for big leaderships to make a stand but we’re lacking that in both East and West. The last years have been a show of diplomatic incompetence all around the globe, due to trashy or dumb leaders in power.

One thing is for sure: Liberals lost from an ideological POV and they lost very ugly. Their pro-globalization worldview that non-liberal places would turn into liberal ones with the economic opening FAILED. So did the alternative (and racist, it must be said) belief that places like China would never be capable to grow if they refused to shift into the western version of liberalism. That failure is just a fact now.

How China grew from a feudal country into a superpower that produces high technology and scientific knowledge is really impressive. But it’s also something that crushed the western liberals prejudiced reading of the world.

Not coincidentally, once the US realized it was wrong about it, they shifted attention away from their own Middle East wars (an afterthought, but something that really damaged their global reputation) and focus on China now since Obama’s 2nd term.

Trump upped the rhetoric and consolidated the shift from a liberal to a more nationalistic understanding of the world. And now Biden is continuing with the nationalist agenda, although in his own way. VERY different from the 90s liberals like Clinton lol

The US liberals are way more nationalistic in their rhetoric now, aligned with what conservatives always were during Bush era. And the conservatives nowadays shifted more into isolationism, which is a different brand of nationalism (opposed to the neocons) but still one. It’s two versions of the same thing expressed in different ways, while pro-globalization stances are unheard of now. This shows that Liberals, true ones, know that they lost. Nationalism is closer to a consensus now, everywhere.

You’re right to pay attention to this because if they successfully crush Russia, it directly weakens China as a power challenger (and others). Which is why Russia and China need a strong coalition that is aligned with all the Global South. Despite any differences, there is a greater good that is of everyone’s common interest. The more are welcomed, the better.

The West just isn’t reliable for your long term economic interests, although you can’t ignore them. It’s time everyone acknowledges this. These people won’t even accept a Muslim country into the EU and are obsessed with “flexible” border controls for different people, more global south citizens should understand that the idea of a non-white country like China or India as independent superpowers giving out rules is very threatening to them.

Ironically, I think Trump’s hard strategy of isolating China (like trying to separate Russia-China by being friendly to Russia in order to push them away from the Chinese, or doing the same regarding China-India tensions) has luckily went to the trash now. Thank heavens. The global south SHOULD (not necessarily will) be more united now and develop more coordinated internal strategies as Russia now has nowhere else to run but to go hard in this path.

Between the Afghanistan fiasco and now the consolidation of this Russia+China special relationship after going too harsh on Russia, you should probably hope Biden/The Democrats succeed in their reelection attempts. Trump would be much worse for global south interests on FP, but he’s also someone that would keep some divisions alive (Europe would have to just begrudgingly suck him up or change strategies since they’re fully on US pocket since Marshall Plan lmao).

And that goes back to what I was saying when there are no decent leaders recently. Sigh.

[Red Velvet]

My takeaway from all of this is the "the West" needs to avoid being too economically interdependent with nations of power that might become adversarial to the breaking point.  "The West" needs to be able to quickly press the go into backup mode button, and replace whatever goods and services are cut off with adequate substitutes. In other words, if need be "the West" needs to be able effectuate a quick and not unduly painful divorce. And "the West" will need to pay a rather expensive insurance premium to get there. Both military and economic preparedness needs to be in play. To cut to the chase, the above policy needs to be in place for both China and Russia. They can and will and probably are returning the favor.

The iron curtain is back - bigger and "better" than ever, or prudence dictates that it should be.
And yes, it sucks. It sucks a lot. One wishes one could break bread with authoritarians without the risk of getting poisoned, but not in this life.

That’s both the western liberal and conservative POV at this point, which evidences that the liberalism established in the 90s post Cold War has lost.

Nationalist consensus rising up, in which national security and cultural issues take the protagonist spot from the economic cooperative interests between all nations.

People who hoped Trump was just a phase and that things would return to as they were before once he left were wrong too… It was more of one of those era-shift moments that people only get to see 2 or 3 times in their lifetime.

[Red Velvet]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-says-gas-payments-may-be-possible-under-russian-roubles-proposal-without-2022-04-22/

"EU sees way to pay for Russian gas without breaching sanctions"

It seems EU ok's Russia compromise of EU companies paying USD or EUR for Russian gas and Gazprombank immediately converting it to RUB.  This entire affair is a battle of technicalities.  In the end, the fact remains that Russia will continue to export gas and get paid for it while giving Putin some face-saving "victory".  In the meantime RUb surges to 76 which is early Jan 2022 levels.

Europe accepting to pay for Russian gas in roubles? Boris Johnson saying Russia could win the war? German intellectuals writing open letters suggesting Ukraine should surrender? But I thought Europe was united for Ukraine? lol

And people who called out the European hypocrisy (from both sides, from the ones asking them to do more to help and the people against the sanctions on Russia) were criticized for pointing the elephant on the room.

The economy vs national security debate is the key to understand the start of this new global order. Easy to push for intense structural de-globalization in rhetoric only but not really do it when you know you’re among the places which most rely on the economic benefits of said globalization and would be among the more affected places if a reversal trend were to start.

That explains the positions of places like Germany who want the war to end for a quick return for business as usual logic, one friendly to their wallets. That’s not going to happen and they will eventually have to be honest about what they care more about: Globalization or Ukraine.

[Red Velvet]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-says-gas-payments-may-be-possible-under-russian-roubles-proposal-without-2022-04-22/

"EU sees way to pay for Russian gas without breaching sanctions"

It seems EU ok's Russia compromise of EU companies paying USD or EUR for Russian gas and Gazprombank immediately converting it to RUB.  This entire affair is a battle of technicalities.  In the end, the fact remains that Russia will continue to export gas and get paid for it while giving Putin some face-saving "victory".  In the meantime RUb surges to 76 which is early Jan 2022 levels.

Europe accepting to pay for Russian gas in roubles? Boris Johnson saying Russia could win the war? German intellectuals writing open letters suggesting Ukraine should surrender? But I thought Europe was united for Ukraine? lol

And people who called out the European hypocrisy (from both sides, from the ones asking them to do more to help and the people against the sanctions on Russia) were criticized for pointing the elephant on the room.

The economy vs national security debate is the key to understand the start of this new global order. Easy to push for intense structural de-globalization in rhetoric only but not really do it when you know you’re among the places which most rely on the economic benefits of said globalization and would be among the more affected places if a reversal trend were to start.

That explains the positions of places like Germany who want the war to end for a quick return for business as usual logic, one friendly to their wallets. That’s not going to happen and they will eventually have to be honest about what they care more about: Globalization or Ukraine.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread beyond preening concern-trolling about muh European hypocrisy and argumentum ad populum fallacies to justify your country's disgusting "neutral" stance toward Russia's genocide? This is getting pathetic.

Have you anything to contribute to this thread beyond hectoring people for not having an opinion in line with your own?

Brazil, and Brazilians, have sovereignty, and clearly prize that. And there are concerns that are at play from a Brazilian POV, that should not be completely shoffed at.

And it's also true that what's being done re: sanctions are in fact deglobalizing the world. They make sense as a short-term tool to weaken Russia's hand, but they come at a terrible strategic cost in the long term if they continue indefinitely. If Russia gets used to sanctions (to some extent, they already are), then our bargaining chips will only diminish and our leverage over them will only weaken.

SWIFT, like many other things, can be regarded as an international institution on which we all rely; cutting Russia from it is not without downsides, as it only encourages the creation of autarkic spheres that rely on themselves, not on international institutions that we, in fact, have the strongest influence over. We could be harming the very international world order we are trying to save. It might be an impossible choice to avoid, but it's still a choice we are making.

And history tells us that the integration of economies, as we see in the modern age, does tend to result in higher standards of living on average. These higher standards of living, in fact, are important if we want a Europe that can afford to flex its muscles. More tax dollars from commerce means more money that can be spent on defense, in fact, implicitly, more money that can be spent defending against Russia should worse come to worse.

This war is about more than just Ukraine, and his conclusion is far from wrong in the gist of it. The de-globalization that is being promoted, indirectly, is not going to just harm Russia, it will hurt Europe too. Severing Russia from Europe in the commercial sphere is good for America, but it's probably not good for Europe. Fortunately, I doubt European leaders will let it go that far.

Many people still don’t realize times have changed and get shocked when they learn people in the global south are rational human beings with independent self-interests. Too much time believing they’re the only center of the world, so the existence and of an independent “other” angers because it sounds threatening.

The de-globalization trend clearly didn’t start because of Russia, but because of Chinese growth that wasn’t expected by US. They’ve been increasingly throwing in the trash the post-cold war liberal ideological stance in favor of a more nationalistic approach. The Russian war has only been good excuse to accelerate this process on their part.

I agree with the poster who responded when they said they likely expect a “controlled globalization” where they’re in the center but that’s not possible anymore in these days, unless they directly undermine the growth of countries they see as a threat/competition. South-South ties have expanded a lot thanks to the globalization of past decades and that’s not something that can be simply “reversed” as the US expects.

Even if this war has positive effect of pushing Europe closer to them in certain levels like they want, Europe is the continent most dependable of the goods of globalization and that’s why they’re are more resistant to accept this reversal. Europe would be more prejudiced than US and also more closed countries which have embraced less globalization over the years. People buying the warhawk trash propaganda attack Germany so easily but there’s a reason for their response to be more cautious.

For global south specifically, even if some places are more adaptable to de-globalization effects (although everyone would suffer consequences), the important thing right now is to not compromise against globalization and multilateralism. That is the best way of showing globalization cannot be reversed or controlled by few countries according to whatever their self-interest of the moment is.

[Red Velvet]

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/eu-says-gas-payments-may-be-possible-under-russian-roubles-proposal-without-2022-04-22/

"EU sees way to pay for Russian gas without breaching sanctions"

It seems EU ok's Russia compromise of EU companies paying USD or EUR for Russian gas and Gazprombank immediately converting it to RUB.  This entire affair is a battle of technicalities.  In the end, the fact remains that Russia will continue to export gas and get paid for it while giving Putin some face-saving "victory".  In the meantime RUb surges to 76 which is early Jan 2022 levels.

Europe accepting to pay for Russian gas in roubles? Boris Johnson saying Russia could win the war? German intellectuals writing open letters suggesting Ukraine should surrender? But I thought Europe was united for Ukraine? lol

And people who called out the European hypocrisy (from both sides, from the ones asking them to do more to help and the people against the sanctions on Russia) were criticized for pointing the elephant on the room.

The economy vs national security debate is the key to understand the start of this new global order. Easy to push for intense structural de-globalization in rhetoric only but not really do it when you know you’re among the places which most rely on the economic benefits of said globalization and would be among the more affected places if a reversal trend were to start.

That explains the positions of places like Germany who want the war to end for a quick return for business as usual logic, one friendly to their wallets. That’s not going to happen and they will eventually have to be honest about what they care more about: Globalization or Ukraine.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread beyond preening concern-trolling about muh European hypocrisy and argumentum ad populum fallacies to justify your country's disgusting "neutral" stance toward Russia's genocide? This is getting pathetic.

Have you anything to contribute to this thread beyond hectoring people for not having an opinion in line with your own?

Brazil, and Brazilians, have sovereignty, and clearly prize that. And there are concerns that are at play from a Brazilian POV, that should not be completely shoffed at.

And it's also true that what's being done re: sanctions are in fact deglobalizing the world. They make sense as a short-term tool to weaken Russia's hand, but they come at a terrible strategic cost in the long term if they continue indefinitely. If Russia gets used to sanctions (to some extent, they already are), then our bargaining chips will only diminish and our leverage over them will only weaken.

SWIFT, like many other things, can be regarded as an international institution on which we all rely; cutting Russia from it is not without downsides, as it only encourages the creation of autarkic spheres that rely on themselves, not on international institutions that we, in fact, have the strongest influence over. We could be harming the very international world order we are trying to save. It might be an impossible choice to avoid, but it's still a choice we are making.

And history tells us that the integration of economies, as we see in the modern age, does tend to result in higher standards of living on average. These higher standards of living, in fact, are important if we want a Europe that can afford to flex its muscles. More tax dollars from commerce means more money that can be spent on defense, in fact, implicitly, more money that can be spent defending against Russia should worse come to worse.

This war is about more than just Ukraine, and his conclusion is far from wrong in the gist of it. The de-globalization that is being promoted, indirectly, is not going to just harm Russia, it will hurt Europe too. Severing Russia from Europe in the commercial sphere is good for America, but it's probably not good for Europe. Fortunately, I doubt European leaders will let it go that far.

Many people still don’t realize times have changed and get shocked when they learn people in the global south are rational human beings with independent self-interests. Too much time believing they’re the only center of the world, so the existence and of an independent “other” angers because it sounds threatening.

The de-globalization trend clearly didn’t start because of Russia, but because of Chinese growth that wasn’t expected by US. They’ve been increasingly throwing in the trash the post-cold war liberal ideological stance in favor of a more nationalistic approach. The Russian war has only been good excuse to accelerate this process on their part.

I agree with the poster who responded when they said they likely expect a “controlled globalization” where they’re in the center but that’s not possible anymore in these days, unless they directly undermine the growth of countries they see as a threat/competition. South-South ties have expanded a lot thanks to the globalization of past decades and that’s not something that can be simply “reversed” as the US expects.

Even if this war has positive effect of pushing Europe closer to them in certain levels like they want, Europe is the continent most dependable of the goods of globalization and that’s why they’re are more resistant to accept this reversal. Europe would be more prejudiced than US and also more closed countries which have embraced less globalization over the years. People buying the warhawk trash propaganda attack Germany so easily but there’s a reason for their response to be more cautious.

For global south specifically, even if some places are more adaptable to de-globalization effects (although everyone would suffer consequences), the important thing right now is to not compromise against globalization and multilateralism. That is the best way of showing globalization cannot be reversed or controlled by few countries according to whatever their self-interest of the moment is.

Explain to me how the invasion and annexation of a neutral country by an imperialist European power is in the rational self interest of the global south?

Because basically your argument amounts to ‘America is bad, therefore  Ukraine’

You’re the one who’s saying that, in order to paint an anti-sanction position because of the deepening and continuation of the de-globalization effects as support of invasion or something.

Similar strategy from when being against Iraq War made you a terrorist, to engineer a few consensus. Now I guess global south countries need to be involved in a matter that isn’t of their business in order to push a self-destructive globalization reversal that only appeases western national security interests. Weird one sided relationship, when the opposite would never happen.

No difference between the western liberals and conservatives at this point. Reversal of globalization is a consensus since the Obama days, as a reaction to China. Difference is just the silly cultural wars used to justify the ultra-nationalism from either of the sides.

Countries will keep doing business with each other according to their interests. If you think you can control or limit globalization to work in the benefit of selected few only, you’re mistaken and future will show.

[Red Velvet]

Europe accepting to pay for Russian gas in roubles? Boris Johnson saying Russia could win the war? German intellectuals writing open letters suggesting Ukraine should surrender? But I thought Europe was united for Ukraine? lol

3) The German intellectuals claiming that Ukraine should surrender are old and increasingly marginalized figures of the 68 generation. They, at best, represent an idealist faction within the SPD. They don't even represent German industrialists who might want to resume business with Russia. Astonishingly, the German party that's the most hawkish on Russia is...the Green Party.

To be honest, this is the first time I heard of such letters so I don't really know what Red Velvet is talking about here. If he has further information about these letters I would like to have it, so that I know who these people are... probably not a really relevant phenomenon though considering that I was unaware of it.

I know that there is a split within the German peace movement between a (probably larger) anti-military aid and a (probably smaller) pro-military aid faction as well as a split between that anti-military aid faction and the Green party, leading to Vice-chancellor Robert Habeck from the Greens recently declaring that pacifism is not an option right now and that peace protestors ought to protest against Putin.

It doesn't - no surprise - contain an explicit call for Ukraine to surrender though. Instead it advocates a stop of German arms deliveries to Ukraine and a negotiated cease-fire that could then include Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of Crimea as Russian, and a referendum over the status of the two Donbas republics.

What you describe in bolded part is a surrender lol

Something that I think is even more “selfish” than being against sanctions only (which is just not doing something against Russia, which no one is obligated to do, but it is treating Ukraine as someone else’s war board)

At same time, understandable if you adopt the German interest POV. A return to status quo would be what is better for them. Not really fair to say to Ukrainians they should accept this bolded stuff though for the sake of a third party interest.

[Red Velvet]

Europe accepting to pay for Russian gas in roubles? Boris Johnson saying Russia could win the war? German intellectuals writing open letters suggesting Ukraine should surrender? But I thought Europe was united for Ukraine? lol

3) The German intellectuals claiming that Ukraine should surrender are old and increasingly marginalized figures of the 68 generation. They, at best, represent an idealist faction within the SPD. They don't even represent German industrialists who might want to resume business with Russia. Astonishingly, the German party that's the most hawkish on Russia is...the Green Party.

To be honest, this is the first time I heard of such letters so I don't really know what Red Velvet is talking about here. If he has further information about these letters I would like to have it, so that I know who these people are... probably not a really relevant phenomenon though considering that I was unaware of it.

I know that there is a split within the German peace movement between a (probably larger) anti-military aid and a (probably smaller) pro-military aid faction as well as a split between that anti-military aid faction and the Green party, leading to Vice-chancellor Robert Habeck from the Greens recently declaring that pacifism is not an option right now and that peace protestors ought to protest against Putin.

It doesn't - no surprise - contain an explicit call for Ukraine to surrender though. Instead it advocates a stop of German arms deliveries to Ukraine and a negotiated cease-fire that could then include Ukrainian neutrality, recognition of Crimea as Russian, and a referendum over the status of the two Donbas republics.

What you describe in bolded part is a surrender lol

Something that I think is even more “selfish” than being against sanctions only (which is just not doing something against Russia, which no one is obligated to do, but it is treating Ukraine as someone else’s war board)

At same time, understandable if you adopt the German interest POV. A return to status quo would be what is better for them. Not really fair to say to Ukrainians they should accept this bolded stuff though for the sake of a third party interest.

None of that is really relevant though, because as I implied before it's just 20 random fairly old left-wing to far-left activists drafting a letter nobody in Germany seems to talk about and whose existence I wouldn't have been aware of in the first place hadn't you pointed it out to us.

lol

Depends of the scale you’re talking about. At a macro level, it’s nothing. At minimum, it shows that despite the media rhetoric there are different schools of thought instead of the single “acceptable” one by the media.

And imo (you could contest it), when you look at the German political response and compare it to other European countries, I think it reflects a generalized wish of return to normalcy. Not hard to make these assumptions since Germany is poster country of economic neoliberal pragmatism and known for its push in favor of globalization to others, against protectionism.

To have forced such a drastic mentality shift is not just hard, but impossible. There are reasons why Western Europe seems more hesitant than Eastern Europe and almost all are related to the economic history.

[Red Velvet]

Russia launched a war of aggression on her neighbor and during the course of the war has deliberately shelled civilians targets and committed active genocide on the population and despite such blast horror there has been this group of self proclaimed leftist who have downplayed or even defended Russia’s actions as above any true ideology consistency they are first and foremost anti-West

Problem with this mentality is that if you go by it, Eastern Europe is more western than Western Europe because of the differentiated reaction.

OR even that pro-globalization / anti-protectionist neoliberals are more leftist than the economic nationalist types. The logic doesn’t click.

Maybe, just maybe, economic interests is what drives these country reactions from Germany to India instead of these artificial ideological abstractions about left/right or pro-west/anti-west.

[Red Velvet]

It's not really much of a groundbreaking revelation that in a country of 80 million people (or any country of any size for that matter) not every single one of these 80 million will hold exactly the same opinion on an issue. It's not something that needs to be pointed out, because it's a phenomenon that generally falls under common knowledge.

Well, not so much common sense, because based on some of the common rhetoric here you would think every person with a different reaction was an anti-western contrarian lol

When in fact, there are German intelectuals and German government itself being hesitant to throw themselves into that kind of push. If it’s actually a “diverse of opinions” topic instead of the one acceptable position only even inside Europe like you say then that just points how non-realistic it is to expect outside places to have a different reaction, to say the least.

Again, it was letter written by oldschool left-wing and far-left activists, the very people who are the most opposed to "economic neoliberal pragmatism" or "globalization". The idea that someone like Konstantin Wecker is personally motivated by a desire to return to "neoliberal economic normalcy" strikes me as ludicrous.

Which evidences it’s not a ideological thing. When you have these leftist types + the economic neoliberal types basically signaling towards the same thing, it naturally points to a specific political culture established over the years that is not related to these left/right abstractions.

Well, I have personally witnessed quite a drastic mentality shift these past two months. I have witnessed it in myself, in people I know, in members of the political elite and in the available polling data. So I regard your assertion that is "impossible" as objectively false, because that's just not what happened and happens around me.

Moving towards something doesn’t mean the shift happens instantly. That’s exactly why Germany is being criticized by both Eastern Europeans and western Warhawks saying their ideological leadership over the Merkel era put the continent in danger.

I agree there’s pressure to move to a more nationalist POV with the de-globalization push as I said, but I don’t expect the political elite to fall in line automatically.