Some feeds I'm interested in. : meta@ibbit.at

Some feeds I'm interested in. (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml to c/meta@ibbit.at

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm going to say up front that I know this is a lot of RSS feeds. You are welcome to tell me I need to trim the list a bit.

!lefty_stacks@ibbit.at:

Caitlin Johnst: https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/feed
Socialism For All: https://socialismforall.substack.com/feed
Dropsite News https://www.dropsitenews.com/feed
Historicly: https://www.historicly.net/feed
Ken Klippenstein: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/feed
Inside China Business: https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/feed

News and Politics:

Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/democracynow.rss
Common Dreams: https://www.commondreams.org/feeds/news.rss
MR Online: https://mronline.org/feed/
Peoples Dispatch: https://peoplesdispatch.org/feed/
Truthout: https://truthout.org/feed/?withoutcomments=1
Workers World: https://www.workers.org/feed/
Mondoweiss: https://mondoweiss.net/feed/
The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/feed/?mk=fl_is_on_feature_page&mv=1
The Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/feed/
Geopolitical Economy Report: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/feed/
In These Times: https://inthesetimes.com/rss
Liberation News: https://www.liberationnews.org/feed/
MintPress News: https://www.mintpressnews.com/feed/
Counter Punch: https://www.counterpunch.org/feed/
Break Through News: https://breakthroughnews.org/feed/
Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/feed/

Comics:

Penny Arcade: https://www.penny-arcade.com/feed/
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/rss

all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago (15 children)

Sounds good. I won't host MintPress because it is explicit propaganda, and if one of the others does anything squirrely I might reserve the right to remove it, but at first glance it all seems fine.

So the ones that seem to fit the lefty_stacks vibe are: Caitlin Johnst, Socialism for All, Ken Klippenstein. I added those to lefty_stacks, although your link for Caitlin Johnst seems to be broken. Dropsite News should probably be its own thing, so I made: !dropsitenews@ibbit.at.

How about this: I can make a separate community for you, "lefty news" or something (just let me know what name you like for it), have you be a mod, and just be able to add or delete individual feeds to it as you see fit. Pretty much everything you're asking for here can go into that one community, but then if some of them are super high-traffic or sufficiently their own thing, then maybe they need to be moved to their own communities, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it, and in the meantime you can have the community and do what you want with it (again just subject to the restriction that if something is objectively dishonest I won't allow it, MintPress is the only one I'm aware of on that list that is that). How's that sound?

Penny Arcade I added, !penny_arcade@ibbit.at. Isn't there already an SMBC community somewhere though?

hideshow 15 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago (14 children)

Thanks for the reply! I'll take you up on that community, that's a very cool idea. I'll double check stuff before I add anything and see how many posts per week a feed generates and open a thread here if the volume seems high so we can discuss it. We can call it lefty_news, that works fine for me.

I'm not sure if smbc is hosted somewhere else or not, but now that you mention it, it sound familiar. I'll search around for that one.

Thanks again!

As an aside, I had this thought about the instance and was curious what your opinion was.

Does it make more sense to have each post locked, to encourage cross posting to local communities?

That's how I engage with the instance, but not sure about others.

parent

hideshow 14 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 2 points 1 year ago (13 children)

Sounds good.

Looks like historicly.net is a broken link too
breakthroughnews.org is denying my client request... maybe their RSS feed is configured to reject requests from RSS bots? Lol
I checked "Geopolitical Economy Report" because the name rang some alarm bells and I'm vetoing that one too ("US gov’t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene")

I'm also unhappy about the very first article I saw posted to lefty_stacks from this list being this... that viewpoint seems comically wrong to me, but I looked over the feed and I think it is mostly just a singular article I disagree with, the feed overall doesn't seem like any kind of deliberate propaganda. That said I would definitely call that "AOC supports genocide she's a fake leftist don't support her" narrative a propaganda narrative. IDK, I guess it's a fair criticism about that particular vote even if I would call where it extrapolates to from there pretty ridiculous. I dithered about it a lot, I read over Caitlin Johnstone and where she's coming from, and I decided to remove her. The main thing is just that she doesn't really have all that much to add. She's saying "Israel bad" over and over again, which, yes, they are. She's telling people not to get suckered by propaganda but she doesn't really have all that much to tell about how, when there's a ton of useful information about how networks of propaganda function, why it is that so much Western media is pro-Zionist, examples of how to recognize spin-soaked coverage, things like that. IDK, let me know how you feel about it but I just don't feel like having that included is adding anything.

(I've had articles from Jacobin that I really disagree with or feel like are echoing a false narrative, but it's fine, they're clearly adding something, and I don't have to agree with everything in order to feel like it should have a place at the table. And I agree with about 90% of them without that reservation. But I had a different take on her. Anyway let me know what you think about it.)

So in any case, !lefty_news@ibbit.at is up. If you make a comment on one of the posts I can make you a moderator and let you take it from there. Did you see the instructions about how to interact with the bot to be able to add feeds to it, are you comfortable doing that or any other thoughts on all the rest of it?

parent

hideshow 13 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (12 children)

The broken RSS is odd, I've tested them in miniflux and they seem fine. Not a huge deal really. Maybe its because they're substacks attached to a domain instead of the substack domain? The subdomain versions just redirect back to their respective domains.

I find your position on adding value fair regarding Caitlin Johnstone. She is a bit of an agitator, and at times its more cathartic to read her posts because she's often saying how I might feel, even if I couldn't express it at the time. Her posts as news though have less value I'd say. It's more commentary then anything.

As for the comments on propaganda, I find the word has lost a lot of its meaning, and is often used as "something I won't investigate/will dismiss out of hand" (I'm not saying you are doing that either.) Instead I tend to focus on bias. Everyone has a bias, and all news has a bias. Some people are aware and even admit their bias, some have never bothered to confront their bias. The same is true with news/media.

Geopolitical Economy Report has a bias and its rooted in the works of Radhika Desai, who wrote "Geopolitical Economy" (a very interesting analysis of geopolitics focusing on the US and its monetary policy over the decades). I think they have great insights into world geopolitical affairs, which are rooted in critical theory.

I did see your post about the NYT and you had already removed it by then. I'm fine with the editorial choices you make ultimately, it is your time and money at the end of the day, so I'll respect your choices. MintPress has a similar bias to Geopolitical Economy Report, in that they take a critical position on geopolitics. I don't read them as often, but I felt they had good coverage regarding the US TikTok ban when that was in the news. The NYT has a bias as well, as we both know, and I think as long as we are aware of the bias, then its fine.

I think instead of focusing on not spreading 'propaganda' it might be more productive to be upfront about a publication's known bias and encourage readers to read it critically.

But that's just my outlook on news and bias. Again, I'll defer to your judgment, since you keep the lights on.

Thanks again for the community to manage. I'll leave a comment after this so you can mod me (waiting on posts to federate). I did see the instructions for adding feeds. Seems easy, I'm familiar with command line style interactions.

No other thoughts at the moment.

parent

hideshow 12 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

Yeah, I have no idea. I can literally do curl https://breakthroughnews.org/feed/ and it shows me a 403 and says "The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data." Whatever. Looks like historicly is working now though.

As for the comments on propaganda, I find the word has lost a lot of its meaning, and is often used as "something I won't investigate/will dismiss out of hand" (I'm not saying you are doing that either.) Instead I tend to focus on bias. Everyone has a bias, and all news has a bias. Some people are aware and even admit their bias, some have never bothered to confront their bias. The same is true with news/media.

Yeah, but it's not just about bias, it's about lying on purpose. I'm fine if someone has a different bias than me; The Atlantic has a very different bias from me and I'm sort of okay with it. I'm talking about deliberately crafting something that's false to try to serve some kind of power structure. It's the same reason I wouldn't host Fox News and I filter stuff like that out. That's what I mean by "propaganda," maybe some other people have different meanings but that's what I mean by it.

I'm trying to sort of bend over backwards just because I get so loudmouthed about lemmy.ml doing censorship, and so I want to check it from all angles to try to make sure that at least from my POV I'm not doing the same thing. But I do feel like it's okay to strip something out that's just bald-faced "I don't care what's true, here's my narrative to try to favor my side." I think almost all journalism has a bias, and also almost all journalism at the end of the day is trying on some level to get at the truth, and to me that's okay. But then there's a certain grouping where the narrative and matching with the right bias is the main thing, and the truth of it is just not important to them. If someone's doing that then I don't want to be involved with it or give it any more strength to push their message. Hopefully that makes sense... and yeah, that's why I removed nytimes, because they seem like they've been crossing over that line into publishing stuff that their own staff is literally shouting at them isn't true, just because it pushes the right narrative. They don't do it too much but when they do it it's pretty significantly different from the truth (which I think is also really common).

I think instead of focusing on not spreading 'propaganda' it might be more productive to be upfront about a publication's known bias and encourage readers to read it critically.

Yeah, almost all of the time I like to make noise about stuff in the comments after the fact instead of trying to do any prior restraint, and then people can read it and agree or disagree. I don't feel like "bias" is always the main thing though. Everyone's biased to some degree, and as long as you see a broad range and people get to try to poke holes where they see something that doesn't hold up, it's fine. It's more a question of, is this person lying on purpose to try to support their biases or not.

Thanks again for the community to manage. I'll leave a comment after this so you can mod me (waiting on posts to federate). I did see the instructions for adding feeds. Seems easy, I'm familiar with command line style interactions.

Sounds good! Yeah, just let me know, happy to have you take it over and like I say if there seems like one feed that needs to get spun off into its own community just let me know and I'm happy to do it.

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (10 children)

I wonder if BT blocks VPS IP ranges. I bet that's it.

I appreciate your perspective. As for ML at a minimum I know they are trying to combat Sinophobia which is a rampant and pervasive issue, but we don't need to rehash that stuff. I agree with you about the lying stuff. NYT has a long history of doing just that. Post 9/11 they were the primary pusher of the fake WMD story. I guess for me, I have to at a minimum entertain the anti-west perspective when people here will defend the NYT and the BBC as objective and principled journalism, while they regularly manufacture consent for Israel. It makes you wonder what else are they are covering for and what other stories you're not hearing.

Also, I'm not sure what might be happening but not a single thread from the sub has synchronized with ml. Same with lefty stacks. Hard to know on whose end the issue is manifesting. At least my comments seem to sync.

parent

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago

I wonder if BT blocks VPS IP ranges. I bet that's it.

Could be. Generally my policy on RSS feeds is that if someone wants to make it difficult to pick up their RSS feed then I don't post from their RSS feed I guess.

NYT has a long history of doing just that. Post 9/11 they were the primary pusher of the fake WMD story.

I wouldn't say the primary. Pretty much the whole of American media was pushing it, it was back in the pre-internet-news days (or right on the inflection point) so the antiwar perspective was really this sort of secret thing in the media that never got talked about, in a way they could never get away with today.

In the NYT, it wasn't entirely pro-war but there were a couple of people like Judith Miller and Thomas Friedman that were really pushing it. I remember having some arguments back then because people I respected were reading the NYT and getting sucked in by those arguments... NYT was always pro-American Empire, "Manufacturing Consent" which you mentioned actually went into a massive history of it as regards places like Nicaragua and Israel going way, way back. I actually think the place I picked up "The Newspaper of Record" to use in the community description was from Chomsky incessantly using that terminology sarcastically in his writing. But anyway they were usually biased, but the Iraq War was weird because a couple of their columnists went off into total factual fantasy-land instead of just presenting a biased view using clever code-words and framings as people usually did. But yeah, for the Iraq War they were doing open fantasy-land propaganda similar to what they're doing now for Israel. It is sad.

It makes you wonder what else are they are covering for and what other stories you're not hearing.

I mean if you become aware of something I should be publishing that I am not, let me know. I think it's a pretty broad range at this point. I'm not in favor of countering pro-Empire lies with anti-Empire lies, I would much rather focus on a broad range, kick out anyone who shows themselves to be clearly comfortable with lying, and then the chips fall where they may in terms of whose narrative gets helped along by the end product. That seems to me like a fair and decent way to do it.

Also, I'm not sure what might be happening but not a single thread from the sub has synchronized with ml. Same with lefty stacks. Hard to know on whose end the issue is manifesting. At least my comments seem to sync.

Hm. I dug around for way too long in the DB, and my tentative conclusion is that maybe all the posts it had to make finished in a little batch 6 hours ago and so you're not getting anything because there hasn't been anything nothing new to send since you subscribed. I upvoted a couple of the posts, so maybe the upvote federating out should mean you get a couple of posts?

If you don't, then I have no idea, but maybe wait a day or two and see if it suddenly kicks in or something.

parent

[–] PhilipTheBucket 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

What's your take on this?

https://www.councilestatemedia.uk/p/many-westerners-have-been-brainwashed-5e7

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

In terms of the content of the reading, it aligns with my views; however, I don't subscribe to the notion of "brainwashing" and think it's a flawed means to describe why people hold beliefs or align themselves politically. It has its roots in CIA propaganda during the Korean War to explain away the confessions of war crimes by returned POW-war crimes we know now really happened. In terms of production, the AI voice reading of paid content is "fine," in my opinion (but I will accept others find it off-putting). I will often use something like "Piper" to turn articles into audio to listen to while driving. This sounds like it could be a Piper model if I had to guess, and it's also not difficult to make a model of yourself to automate the reading of your own work if you desired to do so (no idea if that's what they're doing, however).

parent

hideshow 7 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago (6 children)

Nothing seems odd about it to you? The comments underneath, the overall thrust of the narrative or weird phrasings in the script, nothing like that? Like would you listen to this (or could you imagine someone doing so) as your podcast listening, would that be a normal thing to do?

It seems objectively clearly disinfo-y to me is why I am asking, I am curious for another perspective, I'm not trying to give you a hard time if your answer is "no it seems fine." Check out the comments under the article too, if you want an additional reason why I am alarmed by this.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago* (5 children)

Yeah, the comments are a real mixed bag, and it does make me wonder if they're doing proper moderation.

There is a strange and unfortunate alignment between anti-imperialists and neocons regarding Russia that causes this. Anti-Imperialists understand that the Russian Federation is an oligarchy but that there is a historical aggressor in the NATO alliance that still exists today. In many ways, the conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is like a shambling zombie, resurrected from the end of the Cold War, and Ukraine continues to be used as a wedge against Russia, as it had been used historically. Somehow, despite NATO winning the conflict with the USSR, they continue to press on east with their aliance, against all previous agreements and current demands of the Russian Federation. Anti-Imperialists see Russia "standing against imperialism" but know that it's not out of some ideological commitment but due to historical forces that are still playing out today. Russia would want nothing more than to be like the imperialists of Europe and America, but those imperialists stand in its way. My hope, as an anti-imperialist, is for an end to the conflict and NATO (and Russian) expansionism.

Neocons are hoping the conflict with NATO and Russia with Ukraine at the center will lead to a weakening of both and that the US can leverage this into getting each to align themselves with US intrists against China. The war has already created a market for US oil in Europe and has already committed NATO to increasing its defense spending (which will likely mean increased spending within the US military industry). It's a daring gamble, one that isn't exactly paying off. There are just too many external forces playing around the doller-dominated world market and finding new avenues for trade. The Neocons care nothing about Palistinians; they are fine to conflate Jewdism and Zionism, because that conflict is just another angle of attack on the same target. It's all in service of paving the road to war with China. The neocons are a big tent as well, which is why you get these pro-Russia, anti-Isreal (read antisemitic), Christian extremist types in the comments of publications.

The content of the reading doesn't seem strange to me; I, personally, know people who hold the kind of opinions the piece is talking about; I've had those same conversations with them about there needing to be an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and that (from my estimation, based on how these negotiations have been going) NATO keeps injecting itself into negotiations in ways that stall and prolong the conflict. This obviously has negative outcomes for Ukraine, which grows more reactionary by the month, driving all kinds of enlistment campaigns to drag more of its able-bodied people onto the battle field. It does have the potential to cause a wider conflict, one I think Russia isn't interested in (otherwise we'd be in a wider conflict already), and one I would almost expect NATO to manufacture an inciting incident for.

I've done a skim of the other content on this substack, and it doesn't scream "antisemite in sheep's clothing," which is something I'm always trying to avoid. I've reported the clearly antisemitic comments on that post, and we should keep an eye on them to see if they're removed. If they don't remove those comments, I'm fine with removing the feed. I'll bookmark that post and check in on it between today and tomorrow.

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

Anti-Imperialists see Russia "standing against imperialism" but know that it's not out of some ideological commitment but due to historical forces that are still playing out today.

What's your take on Russia lying about important elements of their conduct of the war? Like claiming initially that the forces invading Crimea were nothing to do with them, claiming that they were definitely not planning to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine within the week when the US started announcing that that's what they were planning, that kind of thing.

The content of the reading doesn't seem strange to me; I, personally, know people who hold the kind of opinions the piece is talking about; I've had those same conversations with them about there needing to be an end to the conflict in Ukraine, and that (from my estimation, based on how these negotiations have been going) NATO keeps injecting itself into negotiations in ways that stall and prolong the conflict.

What's your take on Russia launching a massive attack on Ukraine's energy infrastructure the same day as making an agreement that the two countries wouldn't attack each other's energy infrastructure?

I'm not necessarily asking these questions to start a debate with you, if you don't want to be in one, you don't have to answer if you would rather just agree to disagree type of thing. It's that I have a whole different massive global set of context that all of this needs to be put within, separate and distinct from the massive global set of context you just laid out, and I'm trying to get a sense of how some of the events on the ground fit into your context you're proposing here.

I've reported the clearly antisemitic comments on that post, and we should keep an eye on them to see if they're removed. If they don't remove those comments, I'm fine with removing the feed. I'll bookmark that post and check in on it between today and tomorrow.

Sure. I'm trying not to be heavy handed about just ejecting any source the instant it says something good about Russia, but this to me in my framework is screamingly obvious disinfo. Literally as far as pretty much every single checkbox. I sort of lean in the direction of you and me talking it out at least a little bit, instead of me just telling you "No I veto" right off the bat or anything, but yeah I'd like to talk about this source definitely.

This definitely isn't a neocon source. Neocons like America (or at least the military-industrial complex segment of it), they take Israel's side, they don't like Jeremy Corbyn (or wouldn't if they knew who he was), etc etc.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

I’m not necessarily asking these questions to start a debate with you, if you don’t want to be in one, you don’t have to answer if you would rather just agree to disagree type of thing.

Currently, I don't have the time or the energy to get into a back and forth about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, respectfully. However, I'll say this:

Russia is an oligarchical power at war. They'll do things that an oligarchical power at war will do, which is my nuts and bolts assessment most of the time. That doesn't change my perspective on NATO, however, and the history leading up to these events. It would seem to me that the conditions inside Ukraine are a byproduct (deliberate or otherwise) of NATO meddling in the country. The conditions for the current conflict developed out of both the 2004 and 2010 elections in the country and the eventual "Maidan Revolution" in 2014, which the US clearly wanted to happen, considering how many US officials flew over there. Neither of us could say what the state of things would be if Yanukovych was allowed to govern independently.

ejecting any source the instant it says something good about Russia.

See, I'm not seeking information that says "good" things about Russia. I definitely do not think there is anything "good" happening in Russia. What I do think though is that Russia being squeezed between NATO aggression and its long-standing partnership with China causes Russia to align itself in an anti-imperialist fashion. Internally, the country is still extremely reactionary, and seeing the progress the CPRF makes gives me hope one day it can shake off this reactionary moment in history and strive for something better again. This idea that anti-imperialists like myself think that Russia is "good" really misses the forest for the trees. BRICs is objectively good, for example, and something that aligns more with China's outlook on world cooperation than Russia's even though it's involved with the project. Russia doesn't have the same kind of leverage the West has financially, and as such, their international loans have been historically more favorable than ones that come out of the IMF, for example, to be competitive (one of the reasons behind the 2014 Maidan Revolution).

This definitely isn’t a neocon source. Neocons like America (or at least the military-industrial complex segment of it), they take Israel’s side, they don’t like Jeremy Corbyn (or wouldn’t if they knew who he was), etc etc.

I mean, this should make you wonder what their angle is, then, shouldn't it? Why would a publication that seems to earnestly embrace working-class politics and their representatives, like Corbyn, also have this perspective about the Russia/Ukraine conflict that we're discussing? Ultimately, a bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends.

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Currently, I don't have the time or the energy to get into a back and forth about the Russia/Ukraine conflict, respectfully.

Fair enough, I won't try to make you do it then.

Why would a publication that seems to earnestly embrace working-class politics and their representatives, like Corbyn, also have this perspective about the Russia/Ukraine conflict that we're discussing?

Because they are not earnestly embracing working-class politics, is obviously my answer to this. In my view, any anti-imperialist publication would clearly be against a massive imperialist power killing a million of its own people in a ridiculous and pointless war, not to mention however many Ukrainians, instead of seeking alternative framings where it wasn't really their fault because look what Ukraine was wearing they were asking for it.

Supporting the insurgent wing of the left-est end of British political power, to splinter the effective resistance to the corrupt and fascist wing, is another tactic that would make perfect sense for a publication whose primary goal was victory for Russian-aligned fascism. That's what has happened, to pretty good effect, in the US, France, and Canada, just off the top of my head, and I don't think it is coincidence that it is happening in so many places simultaneously just as a lot of people saying weird little collections of things have inserted themselves into the discourse in a big way.

That's, honestly, one of the reasons I do think so strongly that it's disinfo: The amalgamation of different viewpoints that don't normally belong together ("the Jews are secretly in charge of everything and trying to kill all the Christians" + "Labour's not left enough, we need better than them to help the Palestinians" + "the war in Ukraine is mostly NATO's fault"). I mean, sure, not everyone needs to subscribe to a single monolithic viewpoint in order to be genuine. But a lot of these sources seem to string together exactly the same bloc of misaligned viewpoints, and it always seems to be in a way that wends its way around to whatever would help Russia the most in whatever situation (for example by adding into that "green energy is a scam, we need fossil fuels from Russia to save the European economy" and "AOC is supporting genocide let's stop supporting her" and similar discordant things).

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] AmazingWizard@lemmy.ml [S] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

Honestly, I'm not sure were going to see eye to eye here. You're effectively arguing that my highly critical perspective on NATO isn't valid or justified, while acknowledging that my highly critical perspective on israel is vaid and justified, to the point that NYT isn't on the site (which I'm fine with, especially after this recent article they published). When both perspectives are rooted in anti-imperialist views, in historical materialist views, in analysis that accurately places the US at the center of both these conflicts (with NATO as the lapdog in the Ukraine conflict).

With everything the US has been doing to facilitate and aid in the genocide of Palestinians, is it that hard to imagine that they would put another country is a dire position to support their own geopolitical ends? That they would engineer conditions in Ukraine that would goad and provoke Russia into a conflict? I mean Lindsey Graham was quoted saying:

"We are destroying the Russian army without losing a single American soldier... In 18 months, the Ukrainian people regained half of their territories and not a single American died. The Russian economy is falling apart. The Russian Army has been destroyed. This is a good investment by the American people."

He says the quite part out loud. These are the words of racketeers, not allies. The US State department, in collaboration with Israel are genociding Palestinians, and in collaboration with NATO pushing Ukrainians into the meat grinder of war. This doesn't even touch other active conflicts they engineer, like the one in the DRC, which has never gotten the same level of press.

There is no good way out of this for Ukraine, NATO and the US state department do not care about what's best for them. They will hang them out to dry and squeeze every last drop of value out of their people and their land. It won't end with Ukraine either. NATO has it's sights on China, they will do the same thing to Taiwan, and any other small nation in China's vicinity.

I'm not sure at this point that NATO would even allow it to end. They would have Zelensky killed and replaced if necessary. It's not outside of the US playbook.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] PhilipTheBucket 1 point 1 year ago

You're effectively arguing that my highly critical perspective on NATO isn't valid or justified

What? No. I'm just saying that I disagree with it.

(Actually, highly critical perspective of NATO in general I can completely agree with, I spent a lot of my youth being vigorously critical of NATO while they were engaged in bombing the shit out of Yugoslavia and critical of the US for a huge multitude of reasons. I'm just saying that this particular criticism of NATO, that they were the ones that engineered the Ukraine war, I disagree with.)

is it that hard to imagine that they would put another country is a dire position to support their own geopolitical ends

It's not hard to imagine, they do it constantly. Including, right now, to Ukraine, by being overall a shitty partner, providing an inconsistent supply of weapons which the Ukrainians can't really turn down but which also come with a big laundry list of restrictions on how they're allowed to use them. I get why they do it, starting WW3 is something that impacts the US and they don't want that, whereas dead Ukrainians aren't something that impacts them so they're fine with it. I'm just saying that doesn't automatically mean that any particular theory which also includes them putting another country in a dire position etc etc automatically therefore becomes true.

You said you didn't want to debate the Ukraine war, so I didn't really say much about it, but if you want me to explain in detail why I don't agree with the theory I'm fine with doing that.

parent