He mentions Europe “plunged into chaos by migration” and may have a few other chuddy asides, but everything he actually focuses on is good and important.
Our legitimate questions were answered with excuses, claiming that no one was planning to attack Russia and that NATO expansion was not directed against Russia. Promises made to the Soviet Union and then to Russia in the late '80s and early '90s about not including new members into the bloc were conveniently forgotten. If remembered at all, it was mockingly said that these assurances were verbal and thus non-binding.
We have consistently, in the 90s and later, pointed out the errors of the course chosen by Western elites, not just criticized and warned but proposed alternatives, constructive solutions, emphasized the importance of developing a mechanism for European and global security that would satisfy everyone – I want to emphasize, everyone.
. . .
Sometimes it seems that ruling European politicians and eurobureaucrats are more afraid of falling out of favor with Washington than losing the trust of their own people, their own citizens. Recent elections to the European Parliament also show this. European politicians swallow humiliation, rudeness, and scandals involving surveillance of European leaders, while the US simply uses them for its own interests . . .
He mentions Europe “plunged into chaos by migration” and may have a few other chuddy asides
It might be an exaggeration but immigration is a massive issue in most European countries right now. In Ireland there’s been riots in the capital, asylum housing is regularly burned down in arson attacks. The far right is being wielded by the forces of capital to maintain the status quo and attack the opposition…
I’m only halfway through but at one point he calls the western elites “liberal-globalist” which was a little strange to me
As for the United States itself, the ongoing attempts by the liberal-globalist elites ruling there today to spread their ideology worldwide by any means, to maintain their imperial status, their dominance, only further exhaust the country, lead it to degradation, and directly contradict the true interests of the American people.
I feel like we’ll have a field day of possible struggle sessions with the terms over here (to me, it feels dirty; a bit of page torn from “the Protocols of Zion”)
I’d prefer to say “Western Capital and its compradors”
There’s definitely something weird about a guy whose base is very nationalistic (and not in the national liberation sense) positioning himself in opposition to “liberal globalism” when you and I know perfectly well that ‘liberal’ in that phrase can perfectly mean the f slur, and ‘globalism’ means NATO just as much as it means immigrants. Putin has sold this war domestically as a fight against western decadence, as though they’re fighting a morally indecent society.
I’m not saying Putin is wrong to defend against NATO expansionism though, just to be clear, but you don’t have to hand it to him.
This whole anti nato/globalist right wing red brown thing doesnt exist its just projection from neoliberals
Why whould you assume that it has anything to do with f slur or immigrants, do you think pro Nato people are pro immigrants or progressive or something?
Why do you (plural) assoicated anti nato with reactionary
Dont get me wrong Putin has reactionary views himself i just dont think we should be pearl clutching about the word globalist.
It obviously isn’t, seen by the widespread usage of the term across the political spectrum
The attempted rebranding of globalist into jew is a very recent fringe phenomena. Globalism has been the explicitly stated ideology of Liberals for decades, they self-proclaim as such
I repeat, show me anti-globalist leftist lit pre-2016, I’ve never heard the term used leftistly. It was alex jones fodder for decades, not sure why we should use it instead of imperialism/liberalism.
Liberals often talk about “globalization” in the economic neoliberal capitalist sense, and in the 90s it was very common to be pro-globalization and anti-globalization. It was what the famous Seattle protesting WTO was all about, the anti-globalist vs. pro-globalist split in the new post soviet left
But I’d rather be specific and not simply of talk of mere ‘liberal-globalists’ ; I do not wanna look like a larouchite or settler-socialist (A la Patsoc Infrared)…
How is liberal globalist or elites specific? Anyone can use it for their goal
But railing against Industrial, Landlording, and Finance Capitalists, along with compradors, settler-capitalists, semi-feudal lords, and the like… that’s something they can’t steal, -----!
They can steal anti-western… but they can never steal those terms specifically…
Any brainworms in his speech that I should know about before I start reading?
He mentions Europe “plunged into chaos by migration” and may have a few other chuddy asides, but everything he actually focuses on is good and important.
. . .
It might be an exaggeration but immigration is a massive issue in most European countries right now. In Ireland there’s been riots in the capital, asylum housing is regularly burned down in arson attacks. The far right is being wielded by the forces of capital to maintain the status quo and attack the opposition…
Welp
What can you say
Maybe don’t proove them right by starting a war.
deleted by creator
How’s the war going? Are you winning?
Are you ;)
All objectives of the SMO are being completed
Z
uh im not fighting dude so like uh
I’m only halfway through but at one point he calls the western elites “liberal-globalist” which was a little strange to me
Liberal-Globalist is interchangeable with International Capital or the International Bourgeoisie
I feel like we’ll have a field day of possible struggle sessions with the terms over here (to me, it feels dirty; a bit of page torn from “the Protocols of Zion”)
I’d prefer to say “Western Capital and its compradors”
There is nothing wrong with calling them liberal globalist
The word “globalist” is pretty much exclusively used by Nazis as a dogwhistle.
Putin is not a nazi nor is it anything weird about calling them Globalist.
The last 2 years has shown us that the pro globalist sides are defending actual Nazis
There’s definitely something weird about a guy whose base is very nationalistic (and not in the national liberation sense) positioning himself in opposition to “liberal globalism” when you and I know perfectly well that ‘liberal’ in that phrase can perfectly mean the f slur, and ‘globalism’ means NATO just as much as it means immigrants. Putin has sold this war domestically as a fight against western decadence, as though they’re fighting a morally indecent society.
I’m not saying Putin is wrong to defend against NATO expansionism though, just to be clear, but you don’t have to hand it to him.
This whole anti nato/globalist right wing red brown thing doesnt exist its just projection from neoliberals
Why whould you assume that it has anything to do with f slur or immigrants, do you think pro Nato people are pro immigrants or progressive or something?
Why do you (plural) assoicated anti nato with reactionary
Dont get me wrong Putin has reactionary views himself i just dont think we should be pearl clutching about the word globalist.
Z
It obviously isn’t, seen by the widespread usage of the term across the political spectrum
The attempted rebranding of globalist into jew is a very recent fringe phenomena. Globalism has been the explicitly stated ideology of Liberals for decades, they self-proclaim as such
I repeat, show me anti-globalist leftist lit pre-2016, I’ve never heard the term used leftistly. It was alex jones fodder for decades, not sure why we should use it instead of imperialism/liberalism.
Peep the signs in the protest of WTO in Seattle. This shit has been around since probably before you were born. Is everyone at these protests a Nazi?
We should start using swastikas too, since those were used before Nazis.
I’ve literally never heard the word globalist before fascists started using it, so it can’t have been that common.
Liberals often talk about “globalization” in the economic neoliberal capitalist sense, and in the 90s it was very common to be pro-globalization and anti-globalization. It was what the famous Seattle protesting WTO was all about, the anti-globalist vs. pro-globalist split in the new post soviet left
deleted by creator
But I’d rather be specific and not simply of talk of mere ‘liberal-globalists’ ; I do not wanna look like a larouchite or settler-socialist (A la Patsoc Infrared)…
Dont let those patsoc losers steal our terms
How is liberal globalist or elites specific? Anyone can use it for their goal
But railing against Industrial, Landlording, and Finance Capitalists, along with compradors, settler-capitalists, semi-feudal lords, and the like… that’s something they can’t steal, -----!
They can steal anti-western… but they can never steal those terms specifically…
Did you call me a removed?