@Abstraction Wheres the angry little turd who left me a message then chickened out and blocked me, 😂tell that idiot i cant read his love note if he blocks me👍
I'm a British leftist (as I think you know) and I find myself weirdly in agreement with my own Conservative Government on this foreign policy issue.
I have very mixed feelings about the sanctions aimed at targeting Russian civilians. I'm not per-say against it as a strategy without the existence of better options. The Ukrainian people are suffering much more and anything to leverage ending the war is worth considering. The one caveat is that I think my government could do more to go after pro-Putin elites in London. Abramovich has been got but there are many less high profile Russian oligarchs, some of who have donated to the Tory party.
I also support NATO arming the Ukrainians. When your back is against the war, then you need to get help from anywhere you can. If I agree with Sandinistas getting arms from the USSR during the contra-war, then I support this.
Where Maltese Falcon Punch is correct is that the actions of the US and Britain do not have benign intentions. It is about power and rational self-interest. NATO (or America and Britain) is an imperial power and seeks to expand its influence. It's not being done for humanitarian reasons. Russia is also an imperialist and a more brutal one.
This just happens to be a time in which what is in NATO's self-interest also happens to be the morally correct thing to do. Britain entered WW2 because it didn't want one country dominating Europe and that had been a primary motivating factor behind British foreign policy since at least Napoleon's time. That it was against the evil of NAZI Germany meant that it was also morally the right thing to do, though it's not the primary reason why it happened.
So for me, praising a US (or British) foreign policy decision misses the point. These things don't happen because of a change in ethics, just a change of circumstances including a greater evil.
@Burnley123 Oh my goodness. I would be in NZ now if Morrison had won again. Toxic, corrupt fossil fuel party have been decimated by 'teal' independents who stand for climate, women, anti-corruption and everything the liberals thought they were getting away with. The good thing too is Greens hold the balance in the senate and with the clear mandate for raising Labor's over-cautious climate action target.
@Abstraction I think your Labor Party is very cautious, as is mine at the moment. Tbh, Starmer is even worse whereas I think Albo does actually care about the issues despite his minimalist apporach. Starmer is Blair without charisma. I think it's a great thing the Greens have the balance of power.
I had a laugh when their party leader said 'Google it mate,' in response to that stupid gotcha question.
I've also seen those Juice Media honest government ads. They seem to be a brilliant low budget count-weight to the Murdoch press and they must have a big role in getting the youth vote engaged.
Labor were so shocked in the previous election they decided to have almost no policy differences. They agreed on everything except a few key policies. Woeful to watch, but it was to keep ammunition away from Murdoch, etc. Rupert Murdoch has done more damage to society and western democracy than anyone else in my lifetime across Aus, UK, US. Taught generations of left wing voters to despise the poor and follow the right wing. This election is up yours, Murdoch.
@MalteseFalconPunch Actually, I have told you what you needed to know. You just won't listen, because the answer didn't involve "and the US is horrible and sucks".
I never said the US was perfect, but the troubles which are raining down on Russia ARE those which Putin has called forth. Russia dishonored its word & abrogated an agreement, one which the US is honoring, incl. its commitments to Ukraine.
The world has arrayed most of itself against Putin, his long weekend war has become a new Russian quagmire, the EU, NATO, and even longtime NEUTRAL countries have been re-energized, united, and are opposed to a man who is committing war crimes in Ukraine.
IF you are TRULY opposed to war, then the inescapable conclusion is that you MUST be opposed to Putin, the guy who started this Russo-Ukrainian War now *several* years ago, and who was going to shave off Ukraine bit by bit like a child eating a chocolate bar...
Putin started this war years ago. Putin is continuing the war with the current phase. Putin's puppets have told the world what his designs on everything are, and said that ONgoing territorial aggression is simply part of the plan.
ARE YOU REALLY OPPOSED TO WAR? Then stop shilling for the guy who has committed
• crimes against peace • conspiracy against peace • war crimes • crimes against humanity
Much has been reported in this modern age of smaller, cheaper, higher-resolution cameras. Much has only been hinted at.
But Putin has been at this for quite some time. When are you going to get off your whiny Communist platform and put the blame for this already years-long war where it should be? [Putin's feet.]
You should be proud that the US *and the world* learned from the 1930s that you can't appease the insatiable bullies. I guess because it isn't "the workers of the world" uniting, you are unable to see past your Communist myopia & acknowledge that stopping a series of horrible wars intended to renew the Russian/Soviet Empire is a GOOD thing for all.
And if you want Russia and its people to thrive, the latter have to throw off the most recent oppressors whom they have endured--Putin and the oligarchs.
Go on, comrade, go shill for Putin elsewhere. No one is buying what you are selling except the other Putin apologists/America bashers.
U.S. support to Ukraine has definitely made Ukraine stronger in the battle field, making it difficult to end war with talks/negotiations, which would have been an option to save many lives and the economic destruction. Leaving many women & children in worse circumstances, billons of economic loss with lots of environment damage is not the best option, I think.
The Russians have broken their word in starting this.
Then they have broken their word at the negotiation table several times.
You need to get out of Candy Land and realize that Putin started this because of HIS desires, and they won't be met by diplomacy unless that diplomacy results in capitulation.
[quote]other NATO members apparently [u]not being supportive[/u] to Ukraine, [u]despite having no obligation to provide suppor[/u]t.[/quote]
That makes no sense.
But if you had read what I said, you'd realize I *did* explain why NATO members would provide support, even though they may not have been parties to the memorandum which I mentioned (which I think was your intended point, but not what you wrote).
Further, the Europeans know that appeasement didn't work for Hitler, and won't work for Russia, either.
So there are a few reasons, but you don't read (or don't understand what you *do* read), apparently have no knowledge of WWII, and are incoherent in your writing.
Think what you want. These countries want to survive and thrive. THAT's why they know Putin needs to be stopped NOW, not at the next country.
Those countries are just glad *you* aren't running their foreign policies.
@AthrillatheHunt [quote] reality is just a shared hallucination.[/quote]I'm aware of that possibility and think of it often, while puzzling over the fact that even if it's an illusion I seem to have no option other than to play along with it.
