On April 17, 2023, the Moscow City Court convicted Vladimir Kara-Murza on combined charges of treason, dissemination of “false information” about the conduct of the Russian Armed Forces, and involvement with an “undesirable organization”, and sentenced him to 25 years in maximum security prison with an additional fine of 400,000 rubles (approximately USD 5,000), restriction of freedom for 1.5 years, and a ban on journalistic activities for 7 years.
Of course. If anti-war activists achieve their goal, Russia will withdraw from Ukraine. Then, NATO will set up bases there, including nuclear weapons, in the most strategically relevant outpost at the Russian border. This, of course, will allow NATO to easily defeat Russia, the largest military power barring itself. Unopposed, it will take on China, the only real contender to the US on the economic front. This will eventually result in the US keeping its hegemony for the rest of our lifetimes, which by simple imperialist logic is detrimental to current global South nations. So as much as I dislike authoritarianism, those activists don’t know what they are doing (or, worse, know it damn well) and stopping them by any means will help the rest of us.
Don’t make me laugh. China easily is a more competent and dangerous military power than Russia. Russia is maybe on par with Iran, though Iran has the fact that they are not embroiled in a war of attrition with a minor neighbour with no way out going for them.
Ironically Russia has shit both for quantity and quality of military production. I mean imported French tank optics? Hand assembled fighter jets? Whatever the fuck the Kuznetsov is?
Russia spends around 9% of its GDP on its military, if the EU did the same, the result would dwarf the US. No point in doing it though as Russia is not a threat to the EU militarily. Maybe as much as Syria is, if they implode and cause a refugee crisis.
What does that mean? Who started the aggression in Ukraine?
I agree. Let’s hope for democracy everywhere.
NATO will act according to their interests. If they can defeat an enemy, they will do so. If your point is that the US will simply point all its weapons towards Russia and China and then simply smile and let them peacefully develop to overtake the US in every aspect as they are doing, you’re wrong.
Russia did. But I don’t think they should just sit back and watch as the US prepares to deal a lethal blow to them. The US has set up bases all around Russia, formed military alliances with countries near its border. The US has also promoted coups in many post-Soviet states to make their governments US-affine. Even after the 2014 pro-US coup in Ukraine, Ukrainian citizens voted for the seemingly pro-Russian Zelensky, who had promised to normalize relations with Russia and embrace the Russian culture and language in the Donbas region, and were fooled by what turned out to be a new US puppet regime and continued war against the Donbas. Even US officials admit they were planning for the war, just that they didn’t think Russia would strike first. At this point, who even launched the first missile in this particular development of the 2014 war is just a small technicality in a complex hybrid war that’s been developing for years.
If two authoritarian behemoths are fighting to death as they are, randomly biting and scolding both in hopes that they’ll magically become democratic is a stupid strategy. At best, you will achieve nothing. At worst, one of them will weaponize your innocence against the other, which is quite the case.
No one wants to defeat or have war with Russia (nor China or any country). That wouldn’t make sense. NATO could have entered the war in Ukraine at any time (with the “excuse” of Russia did “strike first” as you said), but it didn’t, because this war -like any war- doesn’t make sense.
Fair. But didn’t Finland recently and all other countries before join Nato voluntarily? Why so?
If we do what the people want -in Russia, Ukraine, and everywhere else- then we would “magically become democratic”. I argue that no soldier in the battlefields wants to be a soldier, and those who want the war are not in the battlefields. But in non-democratic societies, people don’t make the decisions (and, yes, no democracy is perfect, there’s is a lot do and the work may never end).
And it has. They are spending on this war as much as they did on Afghanistan. They are sending intel and commands directly to Ukrainian officials. And not just weapons and information; according to the recently leaked papers, there are NATO troops on the field too. They are fighting the war in all senses except legally, and, by extension, in the PR sense.
Every war makes sense. Countries start wars when that’s what benefits them the most. And countries carefully plan and set up future wars.
There are two sides in this global-scale hybrid war. Finland and other countries have joined what they believe to be the winning side, or at least the side whose victory would be more beneficial to their political interests. Other countries are siding with Russia and China. Countries joining an alliance voluntarily doesn’t mean the alliance isn’t a threat to the other side. NATO has gradually turned itself into an alliance with the power to defeat Russia.
No, nobody would. The US has just passed the RESTRICT Act, which imposes stronger restrictions than even China has. If you suggest that your country should just let the authoritarian guard down and allow every foreign psy-ops to have a meaningful effect on it, they’ll just laugh at you or you’ll be killed by thugs in an unfortunate and unrelated turn of events.
The only way to get what we want is to wait until the existing superpowers have fought each other into an unstable state, then seize power by violence. Anything else is just wishful thinking to feel better about something you don’t actually ever expect to change.
Man, China is not even siding with Russia. China is against the West, it’s just looking to gain as much as it can from the situation.
It’s as likely to annex Siberia as help.