Quote (thesnipa @ Mar 24 2022 04:29pm)
ive never said anything of the contrary. ive said from the start that his pretense of protecting ethnic russians was always a farce, as is his silly stuff about nazis. it always has been about the tug of war to control the sphere of influence.
but im not going to cry for a dictator who sits on the largest pile of nukes in the world that doesnt give 2 shits about the impoverished in his own country. its not entirely dissimilar to North Korea, should we let the people there starve in the hopes they someday overthrow the govt? or should we flood them with food in the hopes that even a small % makes its way into the rural districts to the peasants? we could placate Russia for 3 centuries and what would be the outcome? good for Russian poor? good for the west? or good just for the oligarchy and regime in Russia? i think the latter.
Yet some who know this have the audacity to call Russia "aggressive and expansionist".
There is no "good" in American unipolar hegemony. In capitalism that is akin to a competition stifling monopoly, and one that has demonstrated extreme irresponsibility and abuse with that kind of power. If we put aside for a moment ego, vanity, selfish self-interest, and seeking power for the sake of power... It is difficult to seriously argue that American unipolarity is better for the world than a multipolar order... doubly so when such dubious means are used to justify this end.
In any case, that strategy of cornering a bear hoping to tame it is extremely dangerous, because it is just as likely that bear will turn rabid and hostile.