235
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Feb 2024
235 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19089 readers
1599 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a piss poor attempt at collating the two incidents.
NATO would never give a rats ass about the assassination of a Russian politician. It's outside of NATO's remit and always has been.
Putin has done these assassinations before, even on international soil, and all they get is stern warnings. That's a far more likely contributor than Trump's comments.
My personal belief is that this entire recent iteration of the beef between Russia and the US kicked off because of the Magnitsky Act, which was entirely created by Bill Browder's testimony and at least partly from the US congress's genuine concern over the human rights issues involved, i.e. very little to do directly with anything geopolitical. I don't think the intent was to go all the way to hot proxy war and active democracy-undermining conflict with them, but we definitely didn't react "oh dead lawyer who GAF" even back then when it was a much smaller deal.
You are aware that Russia is excluded from most international forums big and small and under heavy sanctions currently and that we're sending (or were sending until a few months back) tons of high-powered weapons to Ukraine to use to blow their soldiers up, yes? And that we just enacted a whole bunch more sanctions specifically because of Navalny?
Personally, my initial reaction was actually inclined to agree with you on this part. I have trouble seeing how anything Trump says would have anything to do with what they did to Navalny. On the other hand, Vindman has a lot more familiarity with Russia's operating principles than either of us; he's from the USSR and spent significant time in the US diplomatic corps and professional study of the topic, so I'm a little reluctant to just airily dismiss what he has to say about it. He's much more qualified than you or I are on it so I'm more inclined to hear him out.
It's an interesting theory. I assumed it was due to the protests of 2011 -> ratings rapidly fell -> inventing external enemies, taking Crimea, turn brainwashing to the 1000%. I feel like nothing external was at play, and if there weren't no country but Russia, like literally empty space, they'd still blow the provocation whistle.
The timing of that is interesting for Alexei was sitting in prison for years. My assumption was again internal: that he was killed one month before the Putin's re-election, to show he would violently suppress anyone who'd get in his way. But can it be an external signal? To who? To NATO countries other than USA, who may lose their strategic partner? To exact politicians who'd be against it? I'm confused.
I wish you good luck in learning what "contributing" means!
I wish you good luck in coming up with any reasonable explanation as to how this contributes in any significant way.