Comments by "Kameraden" (@Alte.Kameraden) on "USHANKA SHOW" channel.

@mattysav4627 Lenin referred to Imperialism as the Finale Stage of Capitalism, if it's the final then in turn there are no other Stages, which means IT IS THE END STAGE. Even Stalin admitted it when he referred to Fascist Imperialism to be the end stage. Also Imperialism isn't a result of Monopolies. It's a result if Autarky.. NATION'S wanting self sufficiency. No better example than British 17th century colonialism. Britain needed Wood, but required trade to get wood, so established colonies in North America to get wood instead so it wouldn't have to trade Autarky. Some goal as Stalin, same goal as Hitler. Making Autarky is just that, it has nonthing to do with Capitalism as Capitalism loves trade, Autarky is against foreign trade. So ironically it's closer to Socialism. Also Value is Subjective regardless of the Marxist Sense. Value automatically isn't Subjective just because Marxist BELIEVE otherwise as much as the Earth isn't round just because Flat Earthers believe it's flat. It isn't that Subjective value is false, it's just the entire Marxist sense of VALUE is.
1
@mattysav4627 Just did. Laughed my butt off when he devalued the value of labor when trying to counter argue the variation of the value of a laborer. However, he is quite wrong. Rarity and Use Values are subservient to the Subjective Theory of Value. Though Rarity and Use effect Value they're still slaves to the subject views of the buyer REGARDLESS. Best example is the Painting example he uses. Just because it's rare does not mean it's valuable. All paintings done by hand are unique and hold the same Rarity no two paints are the same.. but it's still up to the individual's assessment of the Painting that dictates it's value. Something as simple as a name attached, history or even a subtle flaw can have a huge impact on how someone values it. A rusty sword from 2000 years ago might be priceless to one person and scrap metal to another. It's rarity is off the charts, it's historical value is without question, but I know I'd throw it away. Use value suffers the same flaw. The mud example, mud does have a use value, adobe structures for example, yet perhaps some prefers wood? You could sell them mud, but another person who adores the idea of an adobe home would jump on the opportunity. Again Use is Subservient to Subjective. Then he literally devalued labor value. In an attempt to claim labor time value can easily be calculated, ignoring that even simple jobs like flipping burgers still require skill, and fortitude which can vary greatly from person to person. Making it hard to calculate labor time value. He dumbs it down and dismissed the working man as nonthing more in the modern age as a gear in a machine as if he's never worked a day in his life.... what a joke. There is a reason in my town most people go to the Subway Sandwich shop on the west end of town vs east.... better staff, less f**kups.
1
@mattysav4627 It's not Imperialism it is Autarky. All Socialist regimes are guilty of it. Including China, the Soviet Union and the Fascist. You can not defeat the Free Market without eliminating trade, to eliminate trade requires conquest for the material needed to create Autarky, otherwise all Socialist regimes will be slaves to the established free market as they'll have to trade with that market. It's why Lenin and Stalin exported revolution abroad and even directly invaded many of their neighbors. Make those who have resources allies by regime changes or by literally military force through war. It's why thr Nazis invaded the USSR for grain and oil. All to create Autarky. Makes me wonder if Socialist obsession with Imperialism is a self protection. 🤔
1
@UshankaShow I think the issue is the patch you show at 3:39 has both the Wolfangels and the Black Sun. Though I agree the symbols on their own shouldn't be viewed as proof, but the fact you have both of these symbols from two different parts of Europe, both heavily used by Nazis from WWII and post WWII both collectively on the same exact emblem from a region that isn't Nordic or German. I agree however in your video when you show fighters who fight for Russia who have similar symbols on their Uniforms. It makes the entire Anti-Nazi claim by Putin entirely irrelevant as he is using Nazis, and has Nazis fighting for him. I think the issue here is, why would Ukraine Reject Soldiers who would die for their country just because of their beliefs? It's stupid to think anyone would be dumb enough to do that. Regardless whether they're Nazis or not. Reminds me of that Scene from the film Platoon which you see a Black man riding a APC with a Nazi Flag draped over top of it. During war, personal/political beliefs take a side seat to the issue of actually winning said war. The Azov Battalion had been there in 2014, kept serving, and are still serving. They made up a good check of the defenders of Mariupol, and held out far longer than what was necessary. Why reject fighters who are that dedicated?
1
Should watch TIK's video Karl Marx's Antisemitism. It's not perfect but it helps explain how deep rooted antisemitism is within Socialist ideology. Even the Definition of the Money Greedy Capitalist often used by Socialist literally comes from Classic Christian Antisemitism. Marx himself used the term Capitalist as a synonym for Jews often in his writings and it's scary to think how it heavily influenced Socialist movements post Marx. Socialism does pre-date Marx.
1
@madarssvikis7483 Well the issue with the USSR was it's lack of ability to trade. Ruble wasn't exactly considered reliable as a currency outside the USSR as the USSR operated outside the World Market, ie it was a closed economy so no one outside the USSR knew how much a Ruble was worth, though I'd argue those inside the USSR's government likely didn't either because without a market it's hard to tell what anything is worth. So the USSR had to trade for goods from abroad by other means, means that could be valued outside the USSR. Gold, Silver and Platinum being good examples, either that or other things, weapons, tanks, planes, grain, or general commodities. It's how Pepsi ended up with Submarines which is always a funny but kind of sad story when the State has to pay for Soda pop by issuing payment with Submarines. Heck it wasn't just submarines but other ships as well, Pepsi technically had it's own small naval fleet by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
1
WWII one is quite annoying. USA in particular was fighting a two front war, well technically a three front war.... well technically a four front war.... well technically a five front war... sorry I'm just remember all the regions/fronts that US Army, Navy and Army Airforce were directly involved in since 1942-45, being the USSR didn't get involved in the war in a big way until 1941 the USA was less than a full year behind the USSR in entering WWII. USA in particular, we were literally fighting all across the world from Alaska to the Pacific, South Pacific to mainland Asia, North Africa, Italy, Western Europe. To say the USA jumped into the war at the last minute so it could wave the Stars and Stripes is insulting. I would never say as an American that the Russians didn't play a big part in WWII, it would be stupid of anyone who would dare to say so. Anyone that says the USA didn't play a big part in the war is an IDIOT, and there is no argument that can say they're not if they think that is the case.
1
@UshankaShow He is literally in the same category as someone we all know with a much smaller mustache. So I honestly feel disappointed when people defend Stalin. I mean the man even helped shield Beria despite Beria was raping and murdering young girls just because he was good at being Stalin's Himmler. Making his enemies vanish.
1
Tragically Eastern Europe at the time was a powder keg. Everyone was guilty. Tragically nitpicking leads to convince. Which is in turn exploited.
1
@mantas22 Might count on the dialect. But I've seen Germans using an ee, not an e. German isn't even uniformed in the written sense, let alone vocal. Similar to how many who speak english will say Could of instead of Could have because they're too lazy to say ha and just say ve which sounds similar to 'of' which leads many to type could of instead of could have.
1
@mantas22 shrugs Likely right. Thumbs up for the correction of a correction. hehe
1
Communism is impossible, because like all collectivist ideologies they have to crush the asperations, and dreams of the individual to have a chance of even functioning the way they believe they have to function. This is why all collectivist/populous movements are foolish. Which include religions. Yes, to me Communism is nothing but a religion. So is Fascism, and Nazism, two other collectivist ideologies. Communism = Class Collectivism. Fascism National Collectivism. Nazism = Racial Collectivism. All are about the "Greater" Community, the Group over the individual. Individuals have no real rights when compared to that of the social group. It's inherent madness.
1
@TheLocalLt You couldn't be more wrong in TIK's opinion on political spectrums. As he said. Socialism is either on the Far Right of the Political Spectrum or the Far Left, where ever Hitler goes, so does Socialism. He doesn't actually care if it's left wing or right wing in short. He just uses the terms because people conditioned to adhere to them. You're also wrong on the concept of Left and Right wing Politics. Liberalism has always been about individual freedom from OTHERS. Which means all collectivist movements are by nature inherently anti liberal, and shouldn't be considered left wing. Which includes, Religion, Socialism, Marxism, Fascism and Nazism. Issue is many of these groups hijacked the Term Liberal for themselves. Liberalism is about the Individual Rights over the Greater Group. Whether it's Religious Freedom, Right to own land, property, business, freedom to believe what you want to belief, be who you want to be. All Collectivist movements are anti liberal, because you're almost always forced to adhere to the social collective. Anyone outside of it was removed. If you do not believe me, ask what happens to someone in China who says something bad about the CCP? What happened to people who refused to hand over their property during the rule of the Soviet Union? There was no freedom of the individual, no real rights of any kind. They were not Liberal, not even in the slightest, even if they tried to pretend to be. So if the Left are Collectivist, then they're not Liberal. So this means the Left must not be Liberal? Yet we know the right is often not Liberal either. So neither are Liberal? I honestly don't like the idea of Left or Right wing as a concept to begin with, because obviously there is something terribly wrong with the current political charts. Lastly, they didn't crush Trade Unions, they nationalized them. Issue is, the Soviet Union nationalized the trade unions under the state as well, heck it's in the name, USSR technically means a Union of Unions in it's simplist iteration. Issue was so was Fascism. Fascism literally means Trade Unionism, ie Power to the Trade Unions, all Trade Unions were Nationalized under the State. Maybe you should watch his videos instead of condemning them without knowing where he stands exactly.
1
@TheLocalLt And if the Marxist took control they wouldn't of also made Totalitarian States? USSR, China, North Korea, Laos, Cambodia. I think TIK including I see it as Two Competing Bakers, both Bakers, both baking bread, but both hostile because one likes cheese bread and the other wheat, thinking theirs is better, and also fighting over the same customers. Fascist, Nazism, and Marxism are inherently the same thing, when it comes to their core principles, and with only some ideological differences, but in practice, they become the same beast in the end. As Fascist claim, they're not as extreme as Marxist, but are against Capitalism. The reason Fascist do this is because Fascist believe in Unifying people, not the Worker's Revolution. Using Nationalism to bring the Workers, and their Bosses together under the guidance of the State. It's still Socialism. They're competitors with Marxism, but also still enemies of Capitalism. Hence why I did the Baker Comparison. TIK literally referred to it has a Socialist Civil War that has been going on for decades. I was a Fascist for over a decade for that very reason. I was pro Socialist, but disliked Social Divides caused by Classist Mentalities and beliefs. Sexist, Feminist, Marxist, Nazis, Religious Zealots. etc Fascism promised the social security of a Socialist system, but without Class division caused by Capitalist selfish interest. Using the Concept of the Good of the Nation above the individual, if say a dirty Capitalist put their interest above the people at it's heart Fascist would strike them down. Basically it was a system no where near as extreme as Marxism, and no where near as terrifying as Nazism. Ironically, out of the Totalitarian systems of the 20/30/40s Fascism was the best of the lot, yet ironically has all the negative stigma. Marxist have even successfully convinced people that Nazism was Fascism, in spite of the fact that Nazism literally goes against one of the fundamentals of Fascism which was using Nationalism to bring together all the social groups within society, because Nazis were Racist, this was an impossibility. If you look at all the Fascist regimes, including Austrian Fascist, they were not Racist, at least not in the way the Nazis were, their concept of Nationalism was different. For a Nazi the Nation was the Race. For a Fascist it's the Nationality, not Ethnicity. It's why Nazism would never work in the USA, yet Fascism could. However I've since abandoned that way of thinking a long time ago. I'm more of a Constitutional Monarchist, with libertarian leanings when it comes to individual rights. Talk about a dramatic shift.
1
@TheLocalLt But overthrowing it is what they did. A Revolution is when you replace the Social Hierarchy that rules society. This means if the government completely changes, that is an overthrow of society. Replacing a Monarchy with a Fascist Dictator is a Revolution. Having a single political party like the Nazis abolish much of the Weimar Constitution and replace the government with itself is a revolution. It doesn't have to be a violent revolution. In fact both Mussolini and Hitler claimed their movements as superior as they considered their revolutions bloodless. (Which they were not entirely.) Nazi Germany: They abolished private property, effectively Nationalizing all Private Property in 1933. Nationalized the Education system under the Party. Nationalized Trade Unions into the Party under the Labor Front. Nationalized all the Youth Groups into the Hitler Youth. Nationalized Industries and forced them into major Trade Unions owned by the Party. Nationalizing the Church into control of the State (Party). Does not sound very Preserving of the Classical Order of things.
1
@waltonsmith7210 Bakunin (edit I typed Bukarin as in Bukharin damn their similar names, changed it to Bakunin) a Libertarian Socialist before the term was common place referred to Marxism as a "Cult of the State." When you dig into Marxism, despite promises by say Engels that the State would fade away, the entire ideology is literally Totalitarianism. Marxism and Totalitarianisms are almost inseparable. Dates back to the Communist Manifesto as well. I will list the ten pillars with some commentary below. 1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose. (All land is the State.) 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. (To ensure no one makes too much money, shocking that the original goals of Marxism didn't even abolish money.) 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. (If you die, everything you own goes to the state.) 4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. (If you try to leave the country, the state will confiscate everything you own. If you resist the state, the state will confiscate everything you own, all praise glory to the state which has now enslaved us. You're not even allowed to leave with the clothing on your back.) 5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly. (Yummy, State Centralized Banking, which has since become a reality, tragically for most of the world, and I thought Communist were against the idea of money? No, just against the idea of profits. Unless it's the state, the state gets to profit all it wants.) 6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state. (You can only go where we want you to and all forms of media and communications are in control of the state.) 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. (State monopoly on construction and economic planning.) 8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture. (You have no choice but to work, you will be forced to join Labor Unions "Labor Armies" and do as the State decrees, sounds like slavery? Regardless.... I bet those kids who think they're communist who say they shouldn't have to work need to read this.) 9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country. (State planned communities, with proper agriculture/industrial distribution. ie keep the farms and factories near each other.) 10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc (Contradiction, Contradiction, Contradiction. ie Advocates Abolishing Child Labor then Advocates State Guided Child Labor along side their education, so they work and learn at the same time.)
1
To be honest, Capitalism really doesn't exist. Literary wise it didn't become a common place word until roughly the 1920s. So for the rest of human civilization it really didn't exist as a concept. Marx created the concept of a capitalist, as we know it today, and he built his idea of the Capitalist off old Christian antisemitic stereotypes. You know, the evil money changer, the evil money hoarder, the one who never works and exploits everyone else for money. These were all old Christian stereotypes built around antisemitism. Worse, Marx even wrote an entire book called "On the J**ish Question" were he tries to shift his follower's mind set into believing "Oh it's just a Coincidence" because at the time some actually noticed his game. For this reason I've just gotten to the point that I flat out reject the notion of a Capitalist. It's Economic Liberalism, or Free Enterprise, a far more accurate phrase to use than Capitalism. To me the word Capitalism has been stained after reading into it's history, and origins. Even though the word predates Marx himself, his version of the word is the version we use today and it's a dark sinister perversion of the word.
1
Find it distressing when I hear the media using terms that make them sound like the Soviet Union. Talking about Misinformation on social media is a good example. Gotta stop the "Spread of Misinformation" how often I've heard that phrase in the past year is utterly terrifying. It's social media, it's literally a digital version of a table talk with friends/strangers, no government, business or corporate entity should censor that. Regardless what people say to their friends is true or not.
1
@UshankaShow Yes but it's a double edged sword really. I mean should people trust CNN or FOX News to get their daily dose of information? Two organizations caught red handed often monthly spreading misinformation based on Political bias? I mean why do you think people go to Facebook/Twitter? They do not trust major media sources, and lazy people will not investigate information themselves. So in turn no matter what platform they use, they will fall for misinformation. Whether it's something they read/saw on CNN/FOX, Twitter or Facebook.
1
Well technically you're wrong. Corporations are not examples of Capitalism, but Corporatism. Socialist will say otherwise of course but Corporatism historically is one of Socialism's competitors so of course they will lie about Corporatism. Corporatism is a form of Trade Unionism and was a Moderate less extreme Response to Marxist Syndicalism, and both were born in the 19th Century. There are many forms of Corporations, including State owned Corporations, or Public Owned Corporation. The most common corporation in the world today is Public owned, ie where shares of the company are publicly traded, and just about anyone can buy up shares. With that being said Corporations forfeit their status as Privately owned business as they're no longer part of the Private Sector. Though they may not be part of the State's Public Sector, when a Corporation forms it creates it's own Public Sector. This is why Corporations are like Mini States within the wider State. This is why Corporations have a CEO/President, why they have Boards that Represent the Share Holders, why they have Committees, Bureaucracy, and many other things associated with the Public Sector. Because they are a Public Sector, just not the Central State's Public Sector which is often the largest in most Societies. It's actually why some people state if you like to know what Socialism is like, work for a Corporation, because essentially they operate relatively the same way. However, because they're no longer privately owned companies they loosely and arguably don't' fall under the category of Capitalism. As Private Ownership of the Means of Production is the Core Principle of Capitalism that Separates if from say Mercantilism, Socialism, and other Isms that may or may not have a market economy/money. So what you're hating on is just a form of Trade Unionism, similar to Syndicalism. Just rather than being a Worker Owned Trade Union that owns the factory, it's a Wide proportion of Society who owns the Factory, with some companies ranging from a few hundred to millions of owners. Some Corporations even offer shares of the company to employees, making them Co-owners. Even a CEO is technically just an Employee of the Corporation, paid to manage the company on behalf of the collectivized owners, who can kick them out any time they wish even if they were the original founder of the company.
1
@TheAnnoyedHumanist It has nothing to do with Capital Accumulation at this point. It's about who controls the means of production. Corporations are not Privately owned institutions.
1
@TheAnnoyedHumanist 1. You're getting Marxism mixed up with Socialism. I don't care what the definition Ushanka Show uses, but Socialism has nothing to do with the Working Class. That is Marxism. Marx primarily started the Class element of Socialism. Prior to Marx Socialism had absolutely nothing to do with CLASS. Utopian Socialist and Bourgeois Socialism (Marx made up the term Bourgeois Socialism to critics specific socialist he didn't like) both Pre-date the Class Theory of history, and the war for the working class that modern Socialist advocate, and neither had anything to do with Class. if anything this means Marxism itself appropriated the Term socialism for themselves even though they didn't invent the concept of Socialism. 2. Society is just a Collective Group. The size doesn't matter. Which is why a Society can literally be as small as a club. So even if a Company is not part of the Public Sector State which I explained, it's still it's own Public Sector, it's own society. So you're fundamentally wrong at understanding what Society means. A Trade Union would be it's own Society within the Greater Society. It has it's own leaders, representatives, and hierarchy. But the Trade Union isn't owned by the Union leader. Same thing as a Corporation. There is no single owner or even family of a Corporation, it's a Collectively owned Company. It doesn't have to be the WORKING CLASS or the "STATE" which you're implying when you say Society. Key Distinction with Utopian Socialism: "One key difference between utopian socialists and other socialists such as most anarchists and Marxists is that utopian socialists generally do not believe any form of class struggle or social revolution is necessary for socialism to emerge. Utopian socialists believe that people of all classes can voluntarily adopt their plan for society if it is presented convincingly.[3] They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society and that their small communities can demonstrate the feasibility of their plan for society.[3] Because of this tendency, utopian socialism was also related to radicalism, a left-wing liberal ideology.[6]" ^ this is actually why Ishay Landa's criticisms of Prussian Socialism by Spengler is actually wrong. He concluded that it had nothing to do with Socialism because it was against Marxist theories, and the working Class, even though Marx came after Utopian Socialism and Spengler's Prussian Socialism was built on Pre-Marx socialist principles. Which actually means Ishay Landa doesn't understand Socialism, and views it through a Marxonian lens, apparently the same way you do.
1
Mike Schwinn Ideological excuse is just an excuse. Hitler had always planned to invade the Soviet Union, and it was almost entirely for the sake of resources. He wanted to create Autarky, and the USSR had what he wanted. His obsession with Autarky lead Germany to economic ruin by 1938, which is entirely why he Annexed Austria, almost started war over Czechoslovakia, invaded Poland, and eventually Invaded the Soviet Union, the whole time literally on the verge of running out of valued resources including oil. For example when they invaded the Soviet Union, Germany only had a few months of operational fuel left, and they only had around 20 motorized/armored divisions out of like 130 over all divisions, and to achieve that a vast majority of the German Army had no motorized transit at all. It was so horrible that by 1942 the 6th Army literally had to leave some of it's motorized/mechanized battalions behind, as they didn't have the fuel for the few motorized/mechanized Divisions they had in the 6th Army. The German Army in WWII was always few weeks away from being completely out of fuel. The USSR's failure in Finland gave them an excuse, a reason to think they could pull it off, and their goal was always to get Russia's Oil. Getting red of the REDs was just a bonus.
1
@TheAsheybabe89 State spending doesn't equal growth. Look up the Socialist Economic Calculation Fallacy. Which dictates that it's impossible to calculate how healthy a socialist economy is, as it doesn't operate under profit, injecting money into the economy doesn't make the economy stronger. Being that most of the money the Nazis were spending was in the military as well, most of those spread sheet numbers was just going back tot he state, not to the people, so the economy was never healthy under the regime in spite of how pretty those numbers were on paper. Being prices in Nazi Germany were fixed by the state, resources were purchased regardless of price from foreign countries, and material for factories were provided by the state at prices the state demanded, there was no real market, no proper exchange of goods/services that could be calculated with cash/credit to make any possible assessment on how healthy the German economy was under Nazi Germany. This is why they were going bankrupt by 1938 in spite looking healthy on paper. Why Hitler pushed for aggressive expansion in spite their Army/Navy build up programs being slated to be finished by 1945, ie he was jumping the gun because they had no choice anymore, either go to war or face humiliation as the nation collapses from economic failures of the Party itself. It's the same reason the USSR collapsed out of the blue in with even the CIA being caught unaware. Supposedly being a paradise on Earth touted by Socialist for decades leading up to it's collapse that some how provided great luxury to it's citizens who couldn't even find food on the store shelves despite what "NUMBERS" on a spread sheet said. Those numbers were never right, and because the USSR suffered horrific inflation + price/wage fixes instituted by the state, it masked how unhealthy the economy actually was, which is exactly what happened to Nazi Germany. Excessive state spending, combined with state price fixes, wage fixes, regulation, massive inflation which the Nazis masked with MEFO bills, yes they created a fake currency so they could appropriate cash from it's citizens so it could spend more, it was a dramatic attempt to limit inflation. After Hitler's fired Schact just about the only guy keeping their economy afloat ie even came up with the MEFO bill plan, it utterly fell apart rapidly. Issue is Socialist economic calculation looks good only on a Spread Sheet, but it's all numbers made up by pencil pushers who work for the state using worthless monopoly money that often holds no real value. This is why I make fun of Socialist denialist who praise Nazi Germany's economy, or the Soviet Union's economy as Spread Sheet Warriors.
1
@tolik5929 I place Tucker Carlson in the same category as Charles Lindbergh from the 1930/40s. You may think he is trying to give an 'honest' opinion, letting Americans see a different perspective on 'reality.' But the issue being, that isn't really the case with this subject. I can be brutally blunt. For people who know what's going on, what Tucker has done is horrifying. There are plenty of Americans who are ignorant on the subject of the Russo-Ukraine War. But Tucker didn't do a g*d damn thing to inform people. If anything his actions are just harmful. He likely knows it as well. Hence my Charles Lindbergh comparison. Lindbergh was one of the lead members of the America First Organization that sprouted up late in the 1930s and spent much of their time trying to keep the USA out of what was at the time another European War, should listen to some of his speeches that are on audio they're tear jerking.... Issue is Lindbergh wasn't doing this for sincere. He had close ties, and relationships with many in the American Nazi Party, knew a number of high ranking members of the Luftwaffe including visiting Herman Goering a number of times at his personal estates. His reasoning behind well "Promoting" Peace and Putting America's interest first was entirely for self interested political reasons, and had little to do with what was right or wrong. Tucker is in the same category. Otherwise he wouldn't go out of his way trying to undermined the war effort. Could you imagine someone doing this during the early years of WWII going to Nazi Germany? It's weird to be honest that so many in the USA are not looking down upon his actions. I think it has more to do with want to be true vs what is best for America or Ukraine in this matter. I've been watching politics in this region since the Orange Revolution, and Russia is without a doubt 100% in the wrong with this war. Being since the early 2000s Russia has invaded 3 neighboring countries, and one of them twice now. It's literally a history repeats scenario of Appeasement leading to an overly aggressive D_ck thinking he can get away with whatever he wants because he viewed the west as being pathetic/weak, and now is having to eat his shoes. I mean you can literally compare the Minsk Agreement with the Munich Betrayal and like Hitler, Putin decided to try to occupy the rest of the country he had already invaded because he believed the west was spineless. The international community should stay firm on this war. So no one in the west should be wanting this war to end in any way other than Putin pulling out of Ukraine entirely. He can not be allowed to even have a Political Victory in this scenario after all he's already gotten away with over the years. If Ukraine wishes to resist, and keep resisting and resisting is up to THEM not US, we should support them.
1
@mitchyoung93 Are you sure about that really though? There are a lot of breakdown videos of public events that Putin was involved in which they show a lot of the exact same people in the background. Basically he has a cast of people he uses actors basically for fake public events.
1
@leonamvonborowsky7559 To be honest that isn't exactly correct. It's a Facade. They do it to calm the populous and nothing more. So many Chinese citizens have shown footage of just how staged China's response to social unrest is ie, they fake solidarity, with actors, and staged events showing how good of a job they are doing "not" actually fixing the issues the people are complaining about. For example last years heavy flooding, they literally brought film crews showing the emergency personnel being heroic, but the people they were rescuing were actors, and the whole event they filmed of them rescuing people was that, staged. Meanwhile thousands of people in China died last year from flooding, and the response by the authority was terrible at best. But they created a facade publicly that they were doing a "Good Job" meanwhile the government lied heavily about the death tolls and how much damage the floods actually caused, and how good the government response to the floods etc etc etc. Favorite ones are when they get water hoses out so make it look like it was storming when filming one of them. Basically they STILL CARE more about their IMAGE than the people they're supposed to be serving. China's modern strategy has nothing to do with solidarity but basically creating a facade of actually helping. Basically convince the people they're on top of everything so they have no reason to riot. When they do riot, join the riot and pretend you care. They learned from how bad the PR was from a specific college student protest that eventually turned into a riot which sadly you can not always mention without worry of censorship. So now the CCP has become a master at facades.. hopefully to trick the people into think everything is swell. Heck I remember one tunnel that flooded last year they pulled hundreds of vehicles out of it, and it flooded so fast no one had a chance to get out of the tunnel. Totally didn't happen according to the CCP.
1
@leonamvonborowsky7559 Also about China. China has opened up police stations across much of the world. to monitor it's own citizens abroad. So if you think people from China who are outside of China are free from the glitches of the CCP, no they're not. There was a big scandal over this in NYC last year as well. When the NYPD found out China literally had a number of POLICE stations opened in the city specifically to, control it's citizens in the city. Even being outside of China Chinese are not free.
1
@UshankaShow It's a world where manual labor doesn't exist, and money doesn't exist, and people are left to well do pretty much what they want as long as it isn't harming other people of course. Also things like smoking, alcohol, meat and many other things are illegal, they have synthetic imitations of all of it. Basically a 70/80s Socialist wet dream Utopian Scenario. So glad that the writer for Star Trek Deep Space 9 kind of crapped all over the Utopian vision of the previous shows, but Deep Space Nine became one of the most beloved series of the franchise. They even brought money back in that series because none all the alien races viewed the world the same as the "Federation" did so the crew on Deep Space Nine had to have money to deal with/trade on the Space Station. Basically where the original 60s era TV series was a Space Submarine Exploration series. The 80s era Next Generation TV series was Socialist Utopian Dream scenario, with the crew living on a ship which the ship provided them with everything they could want and what work was done was voluntary work for self fulfillment or duty to the crew and their missions. laughs So so glad Deep Space Nine came along. I liked the original 60s era TV show, but man Next Generation was so... unrealistic/unbelievable, so happy go lucky sunshine/rainbows it made me despise it. I was born in the 80s and I even hated Next Generation. I did like the movies based off Next Generation though just not the TV show. Deep Space Nine added some reality/grit that the Next Generation series so badly lacked. Technology often didn't work, people had to get their hands dirty a lot, manual labor was necessary, rage inducing to a point a drink at the local pub on the space Station was almost required. It threw out that Utopian nonsense for reality.
1