post
Russia support is definitely on the conservative/MAGA side.
Even Biden, perhaps the most turbo of libs, hated russia. Hell, one of the big things .ml criticized him for during his term was being "disgustingly biased" against russia. Where the hell are they finding these pro-russian libs?
There is a kernel of truth to this. After the cold war ended, it really did feel like the world was finally at peace, for a little while. There were still conflicts and wars going on, but they seemed manageable by comparison.
I believe one of the spy museums in DC even wrote that after the fall of Russia, the US was considering ending it's intelligence groups. That was scaled back, especially after Bush's monumental failure in 2001. But it was interesting to see the optimism at the time.
True, and I would say it wasn't so much the resurgence of Putin that kicked off a downward feeling, but 9/11 and the aftermath. Geopolitical violence at "home" no longer seemed an obvious worry until then, in the western world.
I sometimes wonder what would have happened if that had never occurred and the western powers did more to help the struggling Russia in their post Soviet transition....
Cross post this to an .ml community.
Banned: rule 2
Why did Russia offshore my job, cause the 2008 global financial crisis, attack Iraq and Afghanistan under Bush, and tattoo me under my foreskin? Damn Russians
90s were good because the economy grew a lot and that growth impacted most everyone positively.
Everyone's focusing on the whole Russia thing. What the fuck, though, the 90s were not good. Reagan had just got done declaring war on the entire American working class and fucking up their lives quite a lot, and Clinton pretty much continued the program, just at about 50% strength.
Listen to any of the media of the time, that's when Rage Against the Machine got their start, it was the backdrop for Fight Club. It's all hopelessness and anger. The money started coming back once the circa-2000 tech boom started, and things were still riding high a little bit off the 20th century before times, but the 90s weren't fucking good. It was latchkey kids because both parents had to work for the first time, Rodney King, Fox News starting to take over people's brains, layoffs, the battle of Seattle, shipping jobs overseas, corporate mergers, the steady death of a lot of the institutions everyone had been depending on up until then.
Yeah this is all Russia's fault or something. Definitely not the consequences of a system that prioritizes profit over human lives and rewards immense selfishness and greed. We are naturally great and pure of heart, all of our flaws are because of those damn foreigners. You're falling for the same shit the Republicans are.
I automatically subtrack 50 IQ points for anyone who uses the word "libs" as a pejorative because it's ALWAYS either some brain dead Marxist or conservative.
No liberal is pro Russia, they're the one most vocal about their actions. The only ones who support them are Marxists and conservatives.
If anything, making a singular country the world's global factory has had a hell of a lot more impact than the USSR dissolving in the 90s, IMO.
If you think Russia has to do with the direct quality of American living, positive or negative you are a fully hypnotize good ol American.
For everybody new to a Lemmyleftist calling liberals bad: yeah its a thing. We’ve talked about it a lot. And they still refuse to understand why we’re pissed about it.
Pro Tip: odds are in the high 80-90% they’re not American.
Also we’re the bourgeoise who refuse to see capitalism’s chains or that the solution is to seize the means of production from the oppressor class. For more information, say you think liberals are good and wait for the dateline to swing by again.
I like poking them with a stick every now and then, but I don't have the patience to go out of my way to jab them every time I see them, indefinitely -- some of them can go on for weeks. Bless those of you who do.
watch this, I'm gonna toss this one out and it is gonna make one (Or five. Or twenty :3c) of them so mad: You can be opposed to moving towards the center and also realize that bullshit purity tests of leftism do nothing but help nazis in a time where the republicans are happy to welcome every kind of single-issue voter -- gun rights, your family all votes this way, anti-abortion, hate women, hate blacks, hate mexicans, anti-lgbtq, maybe you're a jesus freak, maybe you're a business owner, maybe you're an outright neo-nazi, maybe all you care about is that rich people are never taxed anything ever (regardless of your own income) -- they're all too happy to welcome all these various flavors of people under a big tent that tells them THEY BELONG.
I'm all for trying to talk these people out of their mediocre centrist shit takes, but that can wait for after we defeat the actual factual nazis, no? For now, we need to vote in every election we can to try and take the path of least harm -- if the DSA runs more candidates in primaries, fucking vote for them, but if one isn't the nominee, don't let perfect be the enemy of "better than what we've got".
now, sit back and watch the fireworks. I adore hearing from "true leftists", they're a laugh riot.
well, you sound like someone about to prove me right. go on.
*gasp*! Vote?! for Democrats?!?! You incomprehensible monster!
Don’t you know voting is the cause of all evil?! Also, no one can really prove how it works! Plus it’s bad. Like the Democrats! They deserve our unconscionable inaction because Bernie didn’t win. It’s true, i read it in jacobin.
“Civil wars, child sexual slavery and devastating poverty are good, actually”
Edit: if you’re wondering why the OC OP blames liberals, it’s because this is literally nazi propaganda
ridiculous take. 90s were good because great money was made in the west through Yeltsin corruption of Russia.
When no longer a client state, CIA/west took usual nazi diminishment attitutes towards it, and any Russian blind eye to neonazi click farms for GOP voting action, is simply not Russia's obligation to stop western implosion.
time when western libs finally understand Russia is not their friend.
It is neoliberal majority that supports war on Russia, and embraces the propaganda, that the US ever stopped hating/diminishing Russia. The new definition of tankie is that supremacist war on Russia is deserved, and not even the point that it is a losing proposition matters. You're a tankie even if you just don't want to bankrupt the west, or the signal of losing a demonic war will embolden more resistance to warmongering justifies collapse for trying.
The amount of money made by "the West" in Russia from Yeltsin era corruption was not significant. Things like increased worker productivity and deflationary effects from offshoring and technological advancement were primarily responsible for the booming 90s economy.
Your redefinition of "tankie" also doesn't make sense. Tankies would never believe a war on Russia was deserved, that's the exact opposite of what they are about.
"Russian intervention" has virtually zero impact on my life. What has significantly more impact is people freaking out over Russia. People weren't freaking out over Russia in the 90's, nor were they freaking out over China, and so things were relatively chill, as long as you weren't in one of the countries the US was bombing because there was no longer any check on its imperialism.
The main thing that changed is that the powers that be realized that, if there was this prolonged period of (relative) peace, then there would start being questions asked about why we were spending such ridiculous sums of money on the military instead of using it to actually help people - and the answer to those questions is because it's more profitable for the powers that be. And so, the government started manufacturing threats all over the world and for example, suddenly one day everyone hated China, for no real reason.

I pray for a time when western libs finally understand that the US government is not their friend and never will be, and also not to trust it to tell us who our enemies are. But of course, libs will always be against every conflict except the current one, because once they're no longer receiving focused propaganda about, say, Vietnam, they can (generally) see it for what it was. But if they had lived during the Vietnam war and had been exposed to the propaganda of the time, they would've 100% supported it. "This time, it's different," they say, every single time.
“Russian intervention” has virtually zero impact on my life
Russia constantly sabotages the west in any way they can. Sometimes it's obvious, like setting things on fire, other times it's a bit more covert, like assassinating a political enemy or an up-and-coming pro-west politician. Yet other times, it's very discreet, like when they organised "green groups" that lobbied against nuclear power in Germany and got the government to shut down the plants. As soon as that happened, the main people behind these "green groups" ended up with prominent positions in Rosneft, etc.
Then, of course, there's all the chaos they're sowing. They have whole bot farms designed to spread misinformation, they pay influencers to "just ask questions", for example, about things like vaccines.
then there would start being questions asked about why we were spending such ridiculous sums of money on the military instead of using it to actually help people
I'm assuming that by "we" you mean "the US"? If so: the US is not spending that much, relative to the GDP. It's something around 3% of the federal budget.
Hilariously, something like 15% of the federal budget goes to healthcare. You know, the one that is not free and universal and mostly "private".
I pray for a time when western libs finally understand that the US government is not their friend and never will be, and also not to trust it to tell us who our enemies are
Just trust literally every country that got out from underneath the russian boot. Russia is the enemy of the free world. Always has been.
If so: the US is not spending that much
The US is spending more on the military than the next 9 countries combined and has continued to do so consistently even in the 90's when there was no credible threat anywhere in the world. This is complete bullshit, you are 100% wrong.
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It's insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you're spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
Russia constantly sabotages the west in any way they can.
Nothing they do is more harmful to ordinary people than our ruling class is. The vast majority of corruption and misinformation is driven by domestic forces, not foreign ones. Russia wishes it could have anything near the influence of Fox News.
No, the main thing regarding Russia that impacts my life is the scaremongering, used to justify dumping obscene sums into the military while gutting all our social programs and trying to make us rally around the flag. If the ruling class wants me to be invested in caring about their side in "The Great Game," then at the very least they can damn well give me my fucking healthcare. And my fucking unions. Don't fuck me and then expect me to care about your shit. When we ask nicely for healthcare, they tell us we're commies and to go fuck ourselves, so now this commie is telling them they can go fuck themselves, simple as.
If so: the US is not spending that much
The US is spending more on the military than the next 9 countries combined
You forgot the rest of the sentence I wrote. Sort that out, because your reply is off-topic as it is.
Nothing they do is more harmful to ordinary people than our ruling class is
Sure, because the elimination of Germany's nuclear power plants, or the election of Trump doesn't affect ordinary people in the slightest.
Are you, by chance, high right now, friend?
relative to the GDP. It’s something around 3% of the federal budget.
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
I did not, in fact, "forget the rest of your sentence," I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you're full of shit.
the election of Trump doesn’t affect ordinary people in the slightest.
Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.
I did not, in fact, “forget the rest of your sentence,” I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you’re full of shit.
And yet you're still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.
Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?
Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.
It used to be that the domestic bourgeoisie wouldn't be caught spitting in the general direction of people like Trump. It used to be that a president lying about a sexual "adventure" was immediately impeached. Of course the rich wanted Trump in power (seeing as how stupid and gullible he is, they wanted to control him), but the russian psy-ops is what made him electable in the first place.
It kinda sounds like you'd just rather not believe that US citizens are dumb enough to elect a reality television host on their own.
Like, Occam's Razor this: which is more likely?
- a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century
or
- US education sucks and in the face of declining living standards more and more people resent their leaders
a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century
Why do you think it never had any setbacks?
Hyperbole, mostly. Everything has setbacks
The point is, you are describing a level of long term planning and continuity that's frankly inhuman. Yes, Russia has ops. But the kind of power you assign to them belongs to comic books. Overstating the competency of a scary Other on the other side of the planet, while downplaying the actions of the local people and institutions that, you know, actually govern and have a much more direct influence on the trajectory of this country.
If cyrillic keyboards are so goddamn effective, then its only because the last 50+ years of our policy choices have given them such fertile ground.
You really wanna combat Russian ops? Take the trillions of dollars the Pentagon cannot account for every year, and put it in the fucking public school budgets. Make elementary school teachers better payed than football coaches.
That's because you think of it as a singular action, instead of a massive, massive domino effect.
The op isn't "let's put Trump in the White House".
The op is "let's slowly erode the fundamentals of democracy and kindness, so that extreme views become normal, causing a growth in the divide between various political options, making even more extreme views seem natural".
And yet you’re still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.
Yes, for reasons I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?
No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats, as I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats
The US military doctrine was: to always have enough force and force projection to be capable of fighting against two superpowers at the same time, without the fight ever reaching the US soil.
That's why all the forward bases in Europe and the Pacific are a thing, that's why the US has more aircraft carriers than the five next nations combined, and that's why the "top 4 strongest air forces of the world" are "US Air Force", "US Army", "US Marines", "China" (used to be russia, but then Ukraine happened).
Considering the doctrine, their spending (less than 4% of GDP) was never ludicrous.
Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong, and a big part of why I don't have fucking healthcare.
Why the fuck do I care about "fighting two superpowers at once" (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)? Do you think I'm more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can't afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?
The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.
Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how "reasonable" it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.
Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong
Why?
and a big part of why I don’t have fucking healthcare.
You're AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.
US spending on military: around 4% of the federal budget.
US spending on healthcare: around 15% of the federal budget.
The US has the most expensive and the least effective healthcare system on the planet, and chucking more money down that drain won't fix it. Policies and regulations would, but Americans are fucking allergic do both these words, so that won't happen in the foreseeable future.
Why the fuck do I care about “fighting two superpowers at once” (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)?
No, why would it mean something it doesn't mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?
Do you think I’m more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can’t afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?
See my response above.
The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.
It only forces potential foes to spend more, which is - coincidentally - also the goal. Unfortunately for the world, the US has elected a russian plant as president so the status quo is going to shit - now it's Europe that must increase spending while China can relax.
Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how “reasonable”
As soon as you finally understand the difference between absolute and relative spending, you'll see how ridiculous this sentence sounds.
it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.
NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.
Why?
I literally just explained it.
You’re AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.
No, I am NOT "confusing" the two, I am EXPLICITLY REJECTING the standard of relative spending, as percent GDP, as I explicitly said and clearly explained my reasons for rejecting many times now. Read this fucking paragraph already:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
No, why would it mean something it doesn’t mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?
Because they are not only outspending Russia and China combined, but also the next seven countries added on top of that! How is that a difficult concept to grasp?
NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.
Right, because things like Vietnam never happened.
I literally just explained it.
You didn't explain why the doctrine is wrong, you explained why you think better healthcare would help you more than military spending - with which I agree, btw, your healthcare systems is hilariously fucked.
I am EXPLICITLY REJECTING the standard of relative spending
Ah.... So, you don't understand basic maths? Is that it?
Make it make sense, mate. In what world is relative spending not important?
It's like saying "everybody should pay $2000 in tax a month", and then you have some people who don't even notice the tax, and others who starve to death because of it. ONLY relative spending makes any sense in this discussion.
Read this fucking paragraph already
You posted it four times already. It didn't make any sense the first time around and it doesn't make any sense now - because of your fundamental ignorance on how budgets work.
Because they are not only outspending Russia and China combined, but also the next seven countries added on top of that! How is that a difficult concept to grasp?
We're back to the question I asked you before - do you think that the richer the country is, the less money (relative to its GDP) should it spend on military?
You said "no", but now it seems like you're saying "yes".
It's like with the taxes: if the tax is 10%, then someone earning $1000 will pay $100, but someone earning $100 will only pay $10.
Russia and China are poorer countries, so they spend less (in absolute numbers). But russia is spending over two times more in terms of %GDP (7.1 vs 3.4).
Right, because things like Vietnam never happened.
You can't be naive enough to believe that the Viet Cong wasn't supported by russia and China, which begs the question: why do you consider Vietnam an "imperialist attack" by the US, and not a "response to the imperialist attack by russia and China"?
It’s like with the taxes: if the tax is 10%, then someone earning $1000 will pay $100, but someone earning $100 will only pay $10.
Bruh, what the fuck are you talking about? Are you fucking high?
I need a certain amount of food to live. If I made ten times as much money, I would still need the exact same amount of food to live. It would be insane to argue that I ought to be spending 10 times as much on food if I make 10 times as much money - you see that, right?
What I'm saying is that military spending should be based on how much needs to be spent, based on (at most) how much is necessary to achieve parity with foreign threats. Whether that's 1% or 10% or 30% of GDP doesn't fucking matter, any more than my income determines how many calories I need to live. How the fuck do you not understand this extremely simple concept?
You can’t be naive enough to believe that the Viet Cong wasn’t supported by russia and China, which begs the question: why do you consider Vietnam an “imperialist attack” by the US, and not a “response to the imperialist attack by russia and China”?
Of course a fascist like you would support massacring the Vietnamese. Why am I even bothering with this conversation? I have no interest in your extremist right-wing views.
I need a certain amount of food to live. If I made ten times as much money, I would still need the exact same amount of food to live. It would be insane to argue that I ought to be spending 10 times as much on food if I make 10 times as much money - you see that, right?
Oh boy... Are you under the impression that military spending is "let's buy 1000 tanks, job done, we're good"?
Like, there's no maintenance, no research, no development, no improvements, no intelligence, no ally support, no soft power projection, just a static blob of "defence capabilities" that is a constant no matter what? Or that $1000 spent in the US gives you the exact same capabilities as $1000 spent in russia or China, like there are no differences in labour costs?
Are you twelve?
What I’m saying is that military spending should be based on how much needs to be spent
The needs are defined by the military doctrine.
Could the US be spending less, with less money ending up in budgetary "black holes"? Sure. Would it make a massive difference in the overall military budget? No, it it wouldn't.
How the fuck do you not understand this extremely simple concept?
Oh, you're in for a ride, my boy. Try this:
[spending should be] (at most) how much is necessary to achieve parity with foreign threats.
Define "parity with russia".
Of course a fascist like you would support massacring the Vietnamese
You know what? Fuck off. This discussion makes no sense. You have imagined some things about me and constantly react to things I never said.
I have no interest in your extremist right-wing views.
Jesus, if you only had the capacity to pull your head out of your arse for three seconds you'd see how insanely hilarious this sentence is! :D Like, I'm actually laughing out loud here! :D

all 82 comments