Thanks for sharing this. Speech is being suppressed on both sides, as evidenced by the torture and death of an American journalist just last week by Ukrainian officials who didn't like his opposition to the war and especially his criticism of Biden and Zelensky. Unlike you, this young man's story has been entirely buried. Our MSM is as skilled as Pravda was in its heyday. That your dissidence is widely known (and admired by many Russians) stands in stark contrast to our dissidence. The U.S. touts itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy, but our country has never tolerated opposing ideologies and is increasingly paranoid and prone to overreach. Dissidents are often cancelled on social media and surveilled by the CIA and FBI. It is now widely acknowledged that the CIA assassinated JFK because he was "soft" on communism, meaning he sought peace with the Soviets. Our economic system rewards anyone who makes money regardless of how. That includes defense contractors, who are now raking it in. Our elected politicians are puppets of a fascist partnership of our public and private sectors, their influence bought by lobbyists for giant corporations. So be careful what you wish for. As Putin's repeated efforts to negotiate a compromise regarding Ukraine's NATO membership demonstrates, he had no intention of ruling Ukraine or of invading Europe. This is pure propaganda. But those who point this out are now being cancelled on social media (we have never been allowed to express our views in the mainstream press) and eventually we will end up in jail too. I believe in a multipolar world (which is why I support Russia in this proxy war), given that the unipolar one sought by the West would not spread freedom but end it. What's the point of allowing dissent in a world that you control with no meaningful opposition? This is why I support the Global South in its effort to support a balance of power on our small planet.
The nuclear bomb (mutually assured destruction) has dramatically reduced the likelihood of wars like 1 and 2. War is a whole different animal now. Weaponry and tactics and also the nature of "the enemy" (terrorist organizations often trigger hostilities these days) create conflicts that can go on and on, but not as conventional wars of attrition. I thought Ukraine might be the exception but my guess is that if U.S. arms support dwindles, a negotiated settlement will have to result, with Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia and agreeing to Putin's original demand regarding NATO. Also unlikely, in my opinion, is that a "win" for Russia will encourage Putin to add more territory so as to "restore" some sort of imaginary Russian Empire. I see no evidence of that and I don't trust Western media depictions of his intent. . . or much at all about him, frankly. I'm more inclined to trust the opinions of scholars like Jeff Sachs and John Mearsheimer who have been following Russian affairs for decades. Thanks for the conversation!
We didn't have the bomb in 1914. The prospect of mutually assured destruction is why the world is being managed so differently now. There is enormous reluctance to "go there." Direct conflicts between super powers risk that. We have proxy wars instead. These are not only harder for militaries like ours to win, they are also more corrosive to the cause of peace than the all-out wars between rival super powers we used to have. I'm NOT saying I'm for another all-out war but that we need to be honest about what wars are really about and then ramp up the diplomacy. We should have negotiated with Putin instead of forcing him to invade. We should put ourselves in Putin's place. Look at what we've done to countries in our own hemisphere who threaten us. What is wrong with a neutral Ukraine? Do we really need to perpetuate this fantasy of a unipolar world run by us? I think it's clear who benefits from this. It is not the poor but Western global elites. A multipolar world has a better shot as providing some protection for the citizens of individual nation states. See Russia itself for evidence of this. Putin's focus is on Russia, not the world. America's focus is on global dominance at the expense of the powerless including its own citizens.
I didn't say that a unipolar system run by the US would necessarily be better than a multipolar system. Maybe the US is unsuited to be a global hegemon. However, my observation (that the world was multipolar in 1914, and that this arrangement broke down into World Wars 1 and 2) is unquestionably true.. I don't see any reason to be enthusiastic about what looks to me like an unstable international order.
Thanks for sharing this. Speech is being suppressed on both sides, as evidenced by the torture and death of an American journalist just last week by Ukrainian officials who didn't like his opposition to the war and especially his criticism of Biden and Zelensky. Unlike you, this young man's story has been entirely buried. Our MSM is as skilled as Pravda was in its heyday. That your dissidence is widely known (and admired by many Russians) stands in stark contrast to our dissidence. The U.S. touts itself as a beacon of freedom and democracy, but our country has never tolerated opposing ideologies and is increasingly paranoid and prone to overreach. Dissidents are often cancelled on social media and surveilled by the CIA and FBI. It is now widely acknowledged that the CIA assassinated JFK because he was "soft" on communism, meaning he sought peace with the Soviets. Our economic system rewards anyone who makes money regardless of how. That includes defense contractors, who are now raking it in. Our elected politicians are puppets of a fascist partnership of our public and private sectors, their influence bought by lobbyists for giant corporations. So be careful what you wish for. As Putin's repeated efforts to negotiate a compromise regarding Ukraine's NATO membership demonstrates, he had no intention of ruling Ukraine or of invading Europe. This is pure propaganda. But those who point this out are now being cancelled on social media (we have never been allowed to express our views in the mainstream press) and eventually we will end up in jail too. I believe in a multipolar world (which is why I support Russia in this proxy war), given that the unipolar one sought by the West would not spread freedom but end it. What's the point of allowing dissent in a world that you control with no meaningful opposition? This is why I support the Global South in its effort to support a balance of power on our small planet.
The sad thing about JFK’s assassination is that those who did it are as bad or worse than communists.
The nuclear bomb (mutually assured destruction) has dramatically reduced the likelihood of wars like 1 and 2. War is a whole different animal now. Weaponry and tactics and also the nature of "the enemy" (terrorist organizations often trigger hostilities these days) create conflicts that can go on and on, but not as conventional wars of attrition. I thought Ukraine might be the exception but my guess is that if U.S. arms support dwindles, a negotiated settlement will have to result, with Ukraine ceding the Donbas to Russia and agreeing to Putin's original demand regarding NATO. Also unlikely, in my opinion, is that a "win" for Russia will encourage Putin to add more territory so as to "restore" some sort of imaginary Russian Empire. I see no evidence of that and I don't trust Western media depictions of his intent. . . or much at all about him, frankly. I'm more inclined to trust the opinions of scholars like Jeff Sachs and John Mearsheimer who have been following Russian affairs for decades. Thanks for the conversation!
We had a balance of power in 1914. Just sayin'.
We didn't have the bomb in 1914. The prospect of mutually assured destruction is why the world is being managed so differently now. There is enormous reluctance to "go there." Direct conflicts between super powers risk that. We have proxy wars instead. These are not only harder for militaries like ours to win, they are also more corrosive to the cause of peace than the all-out wars between rival super powers we used to have. I'm NOT saying I'm for another all-out war but that we need to be honest about what wars are really about and then ramp up the diplomacy. We should have negotiated with Putin instead of forcing him to invade. We should put ourselves in Putin's place. Look at what we've done to countries in our own hemisphere who threaten us. What is wrong with a neutral Ukraine? Do we really need to perpetuate this fantasy of a unipolar world run by us? I think it's clear who benefits from this. It is not the poor but Western global elites. A multipolar world has a better shot as providing some protection for the citizens of individual nation states. See Russia itself for evidence of this. Putin's focus is on Russia, not the world. America's focus is on global dominance at the expense of the powerless including its own citizens.
I didn't say that a unipolar system run by the US would necessarily be better than a multipolar system. Maybe the US is unsuited to be a global hegemon. However, my observation (that the world was multipolar in 1914, and that this arrangement broke down into World Wars 1 and 2) is unquestionably true.. I don't see any reason to be enthusiastic about what looks to me like an unstable international order.