3 day invasion
The idea that they planned for it to be 3 days was completely made up.
Let’s see if it pays off for them.
Quite the attitude to have when the west is losing wars on like 4 fronts (gaza, yemen, ukraine, and lebanon) simultaneously. That too while having shit military industrial capacity.
By capturing Russian territory Russia now has a reason to come to negotiations to just call everything off to get their land back.
Ukraine captured land in kursk and this did not cause the Russians to come to the negotiating table, nor signal that they will weaken their demands. In fact, they simply started taking land even faster in Ukraine because Ukraine had committed resources into kursk instead of the front lines.
All it goes to show is that westerners have a complete non-understanding of this war.
Well, at least Russia will further supply enemies of the west in retaliation.
Nato is as much a "mutual defense" pact as sea lions are lions. These guys bombed Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and countless other nations. The members of Nato have repeatedly cooperated with each other, using the military networks built through the alliance to wage proxy wars, perform coups, destabilise regions of the world at a scale never before seen in human history.
You might as well call the axis a mutual defense alliance lmao.
I mean America is a fascist country though. After all, it still has legalised slavery and killed millions of innocent people in this century alone. It's only natural for such a country to elect fine specimens just as Trump or Biden.
But there are some in this thread who would pretend Harris is more pro-genocide than Trump, which is demonstrably false.
Is it? She's the one who is the VP of the organization funding the genocide. I don't recall Trump directly funding genocide, even going out of his way to circumvent US law. Maybe he did, wouldn't put it past him, but given the information I have at least, Kamala and Joe Biden are demonstrably, empirically more pro-genocide than Trump, who remember, has already been president in the past.
Literally the entire political analysis of liberals on this issue is based on nothing but vibes. Trump is worse than Biden/Kamla on genocide because he has more bad guy molecules in his brain of some dumb shit.
Israel, for whatever fucking reason, has us by the balls.
They don't. Their military is entirely dependent upon America. Israel is essentially America's 51rst state. I mean, Congress even passed a law to treat IDF soldiers as if they were American soldiers.
You still didn’t answer the question.
He did, you just lack reading comprehension.
The ruling elite was the Communist party, mostly people near the top who were able to obtain key government positions that they would exploit for personal gain especially in later years of USSR.
The Latter years of the USSR are notorious for being fucked, but this does not address the middle or early years.
Mentioning that some guy was Ukrainian with in the regime while not mentioning Holodomor is OG 🤡
Ah yes, the famine which affected all of the Soviet Union (and Kazakhstan more in terms of deaths per capita) which even the inventors of the narrative of genocide (Robert conquest) no longer call genocide.
Must he nice being a communist while enjoying benefits of western society lol
I love the benefits western society! I get to enjoy half my income go to some landleech and fund war crimes in the middle east! I can't wait to see which climate change fueled disaster kills me, or maybe the fascist death squads will be the ones to do me in!
In a country where the government m is just 3 corporations in a trench coat, this is a meaningless distinction. None of these people give the slightest fuck about what the public thinks on any given issue and will work with the Democrats to undermine any public movement that tries to assert its will (see gaza protests which are just the latest example of this).
I find it hard to believe that a Harris presidency would stand idle.
Harris is the motherfuking vice president of the administration sending tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons to Israel. What in the actual fuck are you talking about? Are liberals genuinely this clueless?
This is an all-hands on deck fight against the fourth reich.
Yes, we should all work to destroy the American empire.
Even people who suck for the reasons you correctly list are willing to point out that trump sucks.
... what? You mean, the "fourth reich" is not the empire which keeps bombing and genociding and looting its way round the world, but is just ... some guy? Who can be defeated by saying he sucks?
getting the water out of the boat alongside us now.
The Democrats (and republicans) are the water in the boat.
the guy who bombed the shit out of Yemen to help Israel “finish the job” before turning against Ukraine and then domestically.
This applies literally to both candidates. The Biden admin hasn't been slacking off in suppressing your civil rights as much as possible.
If you actually want to avoid full-blown Fascism in America
The world empire ruling over humanity with an iron fist, who's founding act was the liquidation of an entire continents worth of people is somehow not "full blown fascist" yet.
But I think we all agree that Trump is an even more aggressive piece of shit in comparison.
How the hell is trump worse than bush era republicans or Mike fucking pence?
I mean, if you get into any real depth with math, you are going to reach a point where you can't use conveniently use words to describe the symbols being manipulated.
As an example for the math I am doing literally right now, I very much prefer using C+R compared to "semi circular arc in the upper half of the complex plane with radius R", or M+(f(z)) which means "Maximum of the magnitude of the function f(z) over C+R", which if I were to write out in full, would just become a clusterfuck.
Also you still wouldn't be able to get rid of symbols because some symbols are placeholders and straight up don't have any meaning in natural language. This occurs often in physics as well, not just pure maths. For example, the laplace transform of any function is written as a variable of "s", but "s" doesn't have a clear meaning (at least as far as I know).
I personally lost all interest in math because there are way too many opinionated or non-standard symbol definitions
That seems like a strange reason to quit math since most symbols are pretty well agreed upon, and maths has little to do with the actual notation either way.
Would be based if it happened, but it could never happen under the UN as it exists
Complain more on the same internet invented mostly by the country you hate?
Says the guy from the country which is by far the bigger drain of Industrial products in human history (you owe the planet something on the order of $50 trillion from the trade imbalance alone iirc). And that's not counting for hundreds of millions killed from pollution, poverty, wars, co2 emissions and so on.
No, they’re not the same. None of us are buying it.
The American empire is the American empire regardless of who is in charge. Let's get off our great-man theory high horse and actually analyze material conditions
The election discourse has become cancerous because it keeps going in circles. This is because liberals have become fixated on the narrative of there being some large bloc of leftists who are going around trying to convince people to not vote. However, this contingent, does not actually exist? Most of the people I have seen take a stance against voting for Biden aren't telling other people to not vote. Some are, but the number of these people is so vanishingly small (compared to the rest of the electorate) that it becomes clear that the election discourse is entirely a waste of time.
Liberals are also really trying hard to convince these people to vote (by berating them online), and it just seems like this is the most idiotic and time wasting strategy possible. These people have negative charisma.
Even if they actually could actually speak persuasively, wouldn't it be far better to target the large number of non-voting centrists/apathetic people rather than leftists who have taken a principled stance (and thus could only be convinced if you knew more about American and world history, which liberals are blissfully unaware of)?
For as much as liberals are fond of accusing leftists of being impotents on a moral high horse, the election memers aren't accomplishing anything either.
This meme I think is the perfect encapsulation of the liberal mentality. The election is treated as a moral choice in a context free and timeless vacuum. There is no understanding of the laws of motion of history, or the logic that drives the American government, neither of which can be affected by an election.
There is the belief that you can delay fascism by voting for the liberal party, without understanding that it is the failures of the liberal party in the first place that breeds fascism.
Reading the comments on the original post, the closest thing to a long-term strategy I saw was to make progressive (by liberal standards) ideas more popular and to vote more tactically in the next elections. Even when I was a liberal, I knew this was a dogshit strategy because it is vulnerable to the Republican strategy of fucking with the legal system and acquiring power regardless of how people vote.
I cannot understand how liberals, after being being told constantly by their own media sources that republicans have made a science out of undermining American elections, believe that the counter to Republicans is ... more effort on elections.
First world labour aristocracy
Sorry about the long post (shortest leftist wall of text be like)
When it comes to the "labour aristocracy" in the first world, I feel like many leftists wildly exaggerate both its size and wealth. This is often done to the point of erasing class conflict in the first world, as this article does. I might be totally wrong here, but i feel like these authors are making anti-marxist errors. The following points are emblematic of what I am talking about (emphasis mine):
>The class interests of the labour aristocracy are bound up with those of the capitalist class, such that if the latter is unable to accumulate superprofits then the super-wages of the labour aristocracy must be reduced. Today, the working class of the imperialist countries, what we may refer to as metropolitan labour, is entirely labour aristocratic.
This is just completely wrong when one considers just how many poor people live in the first world who obviously don't receive super-wages. US poverty rates alone are always above 10%, and that poverty line is widely known to be inadequate. The US also is significantly more wealthy than Europe, where the calculus is even worse. And that doesn't even account for the wild wealth disparities that exist in the first world.
>When ... the relative importance of the national exploitation from which a working class suffers through belonging to the proletariat diminishes continually as compared with that from which it benefits through belonging to a privileged nation, a moment comes when the aim of increasing the national income in absolute terms prevails over that of improving the relative share of one part of the nation over the other
What it is saying is that when the working class share of national income becomes high enough, they start to want to exploit other nations as that becomes beneficial. However, the expansion of imperialism in the neoliberal era is also the reason for the stagnation of living standards in the imperial core. By accessing a larger pool of labor in the south, the position of northern workers is threatened. That's why Northern workers have fought against outsourcing, the very fundamental imperialist measure.
>Thereafter a de facto united front of the workers and capitalists of the well-to-do countries, directed against the poor nations, co-exists with an internal trade-union struggle over the sharing of the loot. Under these conditions this trade-union struggle necessarily becomes more and more a sort of settlement of accounts between partners, and it is no accident that in the richest countries, such as the United States---with similar tendencies already apparent in the other big capitalist countries---militant trade-union struggle is degenerating first into trade unionism of the classic British type, then into corporatism, and finally into racketeering
I am not too familiar with the history of the trade union, but wasn't the degeneration of the unions largely a result of state and corporate action against the unions? They engage in union busting, forced out radical leaders, performed assasinations, etc. This seems like an erasure of the class struggle to the point that the unions are depicted as voluntarily degenerating.
I feel like these kinds of narratives, which are popular amongst liberals as well (liberals will often admit that weak nations are exploited. Example - America invades for oil meme) tend to justify imperialism to westerners. I have on more than one occasion seen westerns outright say that they don't want to fight against imperialism because they benefit from it. I think that's how a lot of westerners justify supporting imperialism. This kind of narrative ironically cements the power of imperialism