Russia can go wherever they want and the problem won't be resolved. It's not about what countries are involved in Ukraine, it's about why countries feel the need to go there in the first place. Ukraine, like Haiti, Syria, and Sudan - to name a few more - is a site of inter-capitalist rivalry

You can get peace - sure - but the Ukrainian economy will be subjugated to whoever the 'victor' is. You can argue that economic integration reduces conflict and wars, but what will remain is a sort of neo-colonial relationship; or a dependency of sorts. That's what I have an issue with.

But that is the only realistic outcome - that exact economic dependency on one power or another (whether that be the US, the EU, or even Russia, or even a mixture, say, for instance, the EU+US or EU+Russia)

There are no liberationary movements in Ukraine to my knowledge, just a reactionary military regime where political rights have been greatly reduced, even by liberal standards for governance. It is exceptionally rare that a country caught between two capitalist rivals gets the ability to form their own sovereign and independent liberation

The bird flu? yeah they tend to do that

so now China is the one doing free trade, globalization, and tech export; the West is doing trade protectionism, nationalism, and inhibition of foreign industry

I can see why people are confused about the definition of capitalism

What are the consequences for this arrangement, though, as we see more governments make a pivot ala Milei, Bukele?

but we taught Afghani women how to use makeup epic girlboss style

i am a self-proclaimed (unofficial assistant to the) mod(eration team) and I do not agree with this

Did all the sanctions get lifted in exchange for humanitarian aid?

the look i give when [ideology] is not mainstream

europe/EU needs to start regulating these twitter bots ASAP

You mean to tell me that Israel, with all those billions of dollars, couldn't see with their own eyes people flying in to their territory with guns? There is no convoluted middle east history, at least not any more than anywhere else on this planet. There is no excuse to kill anyone in violation of international law, especially when the politicians guiding that policy see the enemy as less than human and makes reference to genocidial intent in doing so. If you want to talk about history, the history that is so convoluted and confusing to you, just start in 1947-1948. That should make it a lot easier for you to understand.

Every event in 'Israeli' history can be checked. They never acted in genuine self-defense. They always had ulterior motives, to drive their force as an imperialist proxy with a massive budget, extremist ideology, and settler-colonialism. There is no blame game. Palestinians have fought against occupation. Israel is the one occupying. Now this rougue state is claiming, implicitly, that they lay claim to a Greater Israel project that threatened the entire Middle East and North Africa region. Rather than occupying territory in war, they occupy territory in aims of extermination of the native population. If they were an occupying force in war, they would be required to ensure every citizen has access to food, water, security, and other necessities of life. Instead, they occupy territories and kill or displace the population there. Either it's not a war or this rogue entity is incapable of conducting itself without constantly committing war crimes.

I understand what an analogy is. But you know (and I know) that we don't make analogies at random. There's a specific reason you chose Bin Laden and Hitler to make the analogy. Even comparing Bin Laden and Hitler is dishonest and lacks appropriate context.

I'd say Raisi's death celebration is more akin to celebrating the death of someone like Omar Torrijos (Panama), and I'm not speaking of similarity of death itself or the conditons that created the death. I'm talking about their respective policies.

Death happens everyday and you chose to make the specific comparisons you did. It wasn't an accident, no one forced it into your brain. You did that.

It's not the fact that they celebrated his death that is most important. It's the fact that the people celebrating have no coherent understanding of who he was. All they know is "Media told me Iran bad. Iran bad means Iranian dying is bad man dying. Funny meme death of people I don't see as human."

You can tell based on responses they haven't read even a single article in full about anything even tangentially related to the man.

If you ever have the misfortune of using X (formerly Twitter), you'll see dozens of them everyday, embarrassingly, through hidden replies and replies with no likes, talking about vatniks and Putler and Russian bots