I never said russians were more or less infantile than any other group of people. I said your inability to treat russian like adults who are responsible for their actions (“they’ve never seen democracy”, “the west has backed Yeltsin since 1993”) is an infantilization of russian society. Is this not true?

Also those satirical TV shows were all basically crying wildly that bad things are coming. Said bad things came. So?

I referenced the satirical political shows during the 90s to highlight that the russians did have experience with an independent (perhaps imperfect) mass market press. Yet they did not see this as important. What do you mean by “bad things are coming”? Can you be clear and specific and not beat around the bush? Because it sounds like you haven’t actually lived in russia and you have no idea what you’re talking about.

Also Navalny’s ideas have changed a lot over time. If you are referring to his “Crimea is not a sandwich” statement, it’s just correct - international law has such a thing as right of self-determination, regardless of what Ukrainian laws say. The fact of military aggression doesn’t negate that right.

Thank you for proving my point about broad support for imperialism among russian society.

People are responsible to the degree the structure of power is affected by their choices. Said structure right now is affected negligibly by most of the Russian population.

And who is ultimately responsible for the said [russian political] structure right now?

I will have to disagree.

I don’t think she intended to be malicious per se (that would be Schroder), but Merkel definitely had a deep respect for russian imperial ambitions if not a roundabout show of support for russia’s land expansion.

Something along the lines of "well, what they are doing is wrong, but we’ll just have to keep supporting russia in hope that they will become normal in 30 years. The ends justify the means so to speak, except there are no ends in the case, it’s just Merkel enabling russia.

Reading through her comments after the full scale invasion, I get the impression she hasn’t changed her view and on an outcome basis supports the annexation of Ukrainian territories. Sure, she’ll say it’s wrong, but she will always oppose any real actions to kick russia out of Ukraine.

I am looking at it from a more abstract, generic perspective.

When you lose the right to freely travel, work, live in your country. There is going to be a lot of animosity around this. I don’t think it is fair to purely attribute this to a discriminatory attitude.

And yet she didn’t bother to take his words seriously and maybe consider whether de facto backing russia (e.g. thinking moving forward with Nord Stream 2 after the annextion of Crimea was a good idea).

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have condemned ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan’s request for warrants as disgraceful and antisemitic.

Antisemitism does manifest itself in both casual and systematic forms. The region-specific component is also important.

However, claims regarding antisemitism from the Israeli government are increasingly becoming a “reverse confirmation” of sorts. One could almost argue that if they call something antisemitic, chances are it’s actually not and may even be the correct course of action (clear cut cases notwithstanding).

There is a sizeable proportion of population not yet penetrated by the whole idea of democracy, but those would back any “current” regime.

You’re infantilizating the russian population. Political satirical TV shows in the 90s (remember this was before the internet) easily rivaled what you would see even on current US TV. Yet most russians were happy to accept a clampdown on independent TV and reelected putin in 2004 (generally considered a free and fair election). And they were OK with the comical medvedev seat warming exercise in 2008, not to mention putin’s formal return in 2012.

The russians would never back any political force that would reject imperialism or even acknowledge russian crimes. Even the alleged “opposition” in the form of Navalniy’s gang is deeply committed to imperialism.

In real life everybody is to blame, it’s just a question of proportions.

This is a non-sequitur. The ultimate responsibility for the state of russian politics lies on the russians themselves.

It’s about the choices they make. There is nothing inherent to russian society/culture that would justify such a state of affairs.

The said regime is also happens to be backed nearly universally by the russian population and is the core source of its power.

The “west is to blame” narrative is typical russian victim-hood polemics.

The Senate is due to vote later on Wednesday on a motion of disapproval of loan forgiveness for Ukraine put forward by Republican Senator Rand Paul, a frequent critic of U.S. support for Ukraine.

Rand Paul? Is this the fellow who advocated for taking horse medication against COVID?

This is not unique to Arab Americans.

There is a decent amount of Ukrainian Americans who support independent Ukraine, but also think Trump would stop the war and be a better choice for Ukraine. Although it seems that this is somewhat less common than in the Arab American community (I could be wrong).

This is of course complete bullshit. Trump is a corrupt American oligarch with degenerate tendencies. Oligarchs protect their gangs, expand their territory and give kickbacks to partner gangs (e.g. allowing unsafe “full self driving” rules for Elmo’s organization). This is not even a Trump or American thing, this is universal.

With respect to Gaza, the Israeli oligarch gangs have far more money and influence on Trump’s crew. Then there is also kinship ties.

But this was a shrewd move by Trump’s crew. I think some proportion of the Arab American community will become life-long supporters irrespective of what happens in Gaza (I think their concern for Gaza is a bit more nuanced than what one may think at first glance).

Agreed. I am Ukrainian. Family had to leave Donbas in 2014.

Yes, arming Ukraine in 2014 with ballistic missiles (among other things) and authorizing strikes deep into russian territory would have been not only the right thing to do, but also a key requirement of the Budapest memorandum.

My comment was more in the context of real weapon deliveries only starting since the full scale invasion.

I remember how the Germans put a big stink when Ukraine started using the Bayraktar drones in the line of contact in Donbas before the full scale invasion. What a bunch of spineless cowards.

Good news, but why did it take nearly three years?

The ATACMS, Patriots, F16, modern tanks should have been delivered in the first 12 months to strike russia when they were less organized.

Can you elaborate on this?

I am not American (although I have lived there). I am just curious.

Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.

That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.

South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.

Ukraine is the only country in the world that has the full moral authority to develop nuclear weapons. We are the only country to give up nukes and look where that got us.

That being said “moral authority” isn’t worth shit in this world.

South Korea, Poland and the Baltic nations should honestly try and develop their own nukes too.

Lack of courage and bold ideas from liberal democrats.

While I generally agree with messages in the interview. I cannot help but notice the overly positive attitude towards Gorbachev (albeit with some nuance):

At the end of the Cold War, Gorbachev played a crucial role. For me, he is truly the hero who helped bring it to an end – not alone, but it was very much a personal matter. He started in 1985, and if we imagine what might have happened if the Soviet Union had continued unchanged, it would have been catastrophic.

Gorbachev believed communism needed reform, thinking it was possible. In my view, we can all be thankful for this misconception. I believe communism couldn’t be reformed, but because he thought it could, he initiated change. Had he believed reform was impossible, he wouldn’t have started at all.

Gorbachev supported the continued occupation of independent countries via the USSR. He also approved of russia’s annexation of Crimea. There is a lot more commonality in worldview between putin and Gorbachev than the interview would lead one to believe.

Recognize the goods things that he did, but also recognize that he very much supported the russian genocidal imperialist mindset (that is still widely popular in russia today).

This is not about a “moral high ground” or some deep commitment to utilitarianism (which you somehow turned into a bizarre rant about electing Hitler).

I am talking about a practical, real life evaluation. Of course many people vote based on emotional reasons, but that doesn’t mean tactical voting is not extremely common (perhaps even a majority of voters).

And the fact remains that even people who have a strong emotional motivation can still be willing to make tactical choices. It’s not all black and white like you describe.

I did say “mere propaganda”. I think there is a difference between complete dismissal (which your thread OP implied, no nuances whatsoever) and recognition that while it is government funded, it still offers things that are not available in nominally independent private US news sources.

It feels like we are arguing about things. 😜

What made you think I don’t know this?

I was commenting on a completely different topic; the fact that nominally independent American private news sources often have lower quality content with less nuance than VOA which is government funded.

And I wouldn’t discount public funding as legitimate option. Read up on the BBC.

And the incumbent doesn’t need VOA. There are more than enough mass scale private networks for propaganda distribution.