Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Although I typically would not post anything from Fox tv , T Carlson's interview with Colonel Macgregor earlier this evening was on point:
The extreme right is very much split on the issue, as you can see in the support of the Ukrainian resistance by some of the most extreme groups we still have in Europe. By now most of the extreme right is actually on the Ukrainian side. Its rather the populist right, which got more support from Putin, which was in favour of his Russia, but even that being no more, at least not as unified as it probably was before the invasion.
The left is not necessarily the most "extreme left", but those which still stand to the classical European left positions, being more interested in social justice and the control of the capital and big corporations, the prevention of violence, than brainwashing the population with identity politics while keeping them as obedient sheeple for the "elites". Much of the "left" in Europe is now nothing more than a copy of the American crap which spills over from the other side of the Atlantic. They care more for identity politics and the next big thing the US media and think tanks push forward than their old ideals and promises to the people ("working class").
This is not about being more or less extreme, on the left, but about the focus, like "traditional left" (social politics, strong state, focus on human needs, control of the big corporations and capital, anti-war and peace orientation) vs. "woke left" (identity politics, anti-male and anti-white, ecological and anti-anthropocentric ideas, social engineering, totalitarian state and surveillance, cooperation with the big capital, more likely to be pro-war if it suits them).
I agree that at some point there will have to be made a compromise with Putin, we have no other choice.
On the other side, the whole world is watching this.
They will see that Putin gets away with this.
May be in Austria not here, the extreme right are Putin puppets.
Scholz is also the moderate left even most typical of the modern European left and hey even surprised the CDU which gave him standing ovations. The AfD is more leaning towards Putin.
Even if he gets away with this at first, the costs will be enormous and might lead to his end even in a good case scenario. For him really winning this, at this point, he needs a best case scenario which became very unlikely.
And it was a Western provocation which cornered Russia to spread the Anti-Russian propaganda for years in Ukraine, send weapons and offering a NATO membership in the current borders without even talking about Crimea. I think the Ukrainian woman in the recent press conference with Boris Johnson said something very important: "You gave the Ukraine a guarantee in Budapest..."
Well, there is a president in the Ukraine which wanted the confrontation, with the support of the Western powers, and his regime was absolutely unwilling to accept any compromise with Russia while constantly shelling the Donbas and never keeping to the Minsk Agreement. What have people thought this would lead to? And they gave the Ukraine unrealistic guarantees to push them even more, and now they can't and don't want to hold it, if they don't want to stumble in a Third World War.
Its clearly the Western powers fault too, even though Putin made of course the big step he should have never made himself. I too think, of course, it was a grave mistake and crime of Putin, to act the way he did. I understand why he did it, and he was pushed to the limits, by the sanctions and threats he got anyway, even if just deciding to defend the Donbas and the Crimea, but still, what he did was wrong under the given circumstances and with the consequences it has. Because his trial, which might not even be successful, will cost a lot of lifes, leaves many crippled and economic destruction behind, not even talking about the psychological damage and human tragedy. That's not worth it, regardless which side wins in the end. Both the West and Russia are to blame for this, but he made the final decision.
Now its just about how to end this with as little human suffering as possible and for that we need a diplomatic solution as soon as possible.
Its probably your definition of extreme right. People get confused about what extremism means. There are many definitions, but one is the general acceptance of violence, others are more ideological. In any case, most of the AfD is definitely more on the populist right spectrum than on the extreme right. It depends on definitions and even within the party there are fractions and people, but generally speaking, extreme right is not how I would define it. Far right, probably, extreme, no.
I doubt that the right you mean in the Netherlands is way more radical, you probably meant the usual populist right too.
Sure, the right parties will still be more inclined towards Russia, generally speaking, than the parties which always follow the US-directions, but in Austria the (populist right) FP� left the cooperation with Russia with the end of the last year:
https://orf.at/stories/3239554/
In the end the right in Europe didn't profit that much from Russia, Putin was, like I said, undecided and tried to appeal to a variety of opposition groups from the left and right.
Even if he gets away with this at first, the costs will be enormous and might lead to his end even in a good case scenario. For him really winning this, at this point, he needs a best case scenario which became very unlikely.
And it was a Western provocation which cornered Russia to spread the Anti-Russian propaganda for years in Ukraine, send weapons and offering a NATO membership in the current borders without even talking about Crimea. I think the Ukrainian woman in the recent press conference with Boris Johnson said something very important: "You gave the Ukraine a guarantee in Budapest..."
Well, there is a president in the Ukraine which wanted the confrontation, with the support of the Western powers, and his regime was absolutely unwilling to accept any compromise with Russia while constantly shelling the Donbas and never keeping to the Minsk Agreement. What have people thought this would lead to? And they gave the Ukraine unrealistic guarantees to push them even more, and now they can't and don't want to hold it, if they don't want to stumble in a Third World War.
Its clearly the Western powers fault too, even though Putin made of course the big step he should have never made himself. I too think, of course, it was a grave mistake and crime of Putin, to act the way he did. I understand why he did it, and he was pushed to the limits, by the sanctions and threats he got anyway, even if just deciding to defend the Donbas and the Crimea, but still, what he did was wrong under the given circumstances and with the consequences it has. Because his trial, which might not even be successful, will cost a lot of lifes, leaves many crippled and economic destruction behind, not even talking about the psychological damage and human tragedy. That's not worth it, regardless which side wins in the end. Both the West and Russia are to blame for this, but he made the final decision.
Now its just about how to end this with as little human suffering as possible and for that we need a diplomatic solution as soon as possible.
It's not about the blame if the West had done this, if Putin has done that. It's a fact that Putin has declared a sovereign country war, without there was a reason to do so (although in his frame with genocide and neon's this will be different).
There must the world draw a line in the sand, there can be no concessions about that. Because if you so that is rewarding for his behavior.
The authoritarian populist right is a form of extreme right to me.
They can't stand diversity (one folk, one nation) and they are opposed to liberal democracy, they even disgust it. And it's very evident that Putin, Baudet, Wilders (Dutch) or the AfD in Germany or LePen in France are using much of the same frames. Are ideological very clear connected. And some of them get funded by Putin, so on an ideological and even an organization level they show a coherence.
Ukraine had open and honest elections. It was their own choice to join NATO and to open to the west. I don't understand that this would be a provocation. Unless you think Ukraine does not have the right to be a democracy and choose it's own policies. Is that wanting confrontation? Please explain to me, because I don't get it.
Very unhappy to hear that both Ukrainians and Poles are allowing racism against non-whites to impact decisions. Not that the Russians would be any better; they'd probably be worse in the same situation.
It's alleged that Syrians, Africans, British and American Africans are routinely pulled off buses to allow Ukrainians to get out first, and signs in Poland say NO BLACKS.
If true, that's just terrible. The invasion is horrific and a violation of the 1994 treaty; the use of cluster bombs and vacuum bombs on civilian populations is a war crime. However, the eastern democracies have a long way to go, and its best to remember what kinds of societies they create. It ain't Iowa, folks.
The unintended consequences of all of this also have to be considered. It's one thing to get Germany to pay its fair share of NATO costs, but is a militarized Germany really a good idea? I honestly don't know, because I don't have a good enough grasp of the real mind set in Germany these days, especially when I see that even on this site there are those whose Pan-Germanism superiority complex is starting to show.
Hard hearted as it makes me feel, sending materiel is one thing, but declaring a no-fly zone over Ukraine could easily lead to NATO planes shooting down Russian aircraft. What then if Putin uses so called tactical nukes? I wouldn't put it past him.
I'd just like to say for the record that some posts on this thread lead me to dig deeper into far right and far left rhetoric on this matter, and it's really sad that instead of seeing objective analysis I see people just basing their opinions on their political orientation, with much of it still swirling around one's view of Trump. It's beyond pathetic. That's what really makes me despair of the future.
Again: As if anybody really cares. Do you know for what kind of reasons the USA invaded "sovereign" countries over and over again? Or bribe and corrupt, spread propaganda and disinformation?
The Ukraine could be weaponised, brainwashed, join NATO, kick Russia out of its main military port and base in Crimea and then what's next? Probably even American nuclear missiles, right at the border of Russia? All of that with a country with such a large Russian speaking population and history? Putin has drawn the basic red lines over and over again, and no objective observer can say that his claims were not justified at all.
I tell you, the USA and UK would have intervened for far less, for far less, in the past and most likely the present also.
Russia would have accepted a lot of things other than questioning the base in Crimea and the NATO membership. Sure, we can ask whether its worth it, but it sure as hell was a massive provocation by the Ukraine government and the West to approach things as they did. Again, the USA did do military interventions on a regular basis for far less and with a much worse justification.
What Putin does is wrong because his plans cause too many kills, crippling and impoverishment of too many people for a dubious strategy, which might even lead to further escalation and great danger for the world. That's why its wrong, not because what the West and this Ukrainian government did and still does is right. They are both wrong, but the step Putin made is kind of "even more wrong" and goes in the wrong direction. He got pushed to that point, which is a strategy, now we need to get out of this mess asap and limit the damage.
It's useless to discuss with people with double standards.
Turkey?s western allies are wrong to treat Turkey as an occupying power in Syria, Turkish presidential spokesman İbrahim Kalın said.
?We are not targeting Syrian soil, but we were forced to take this step - because of our own security and the security of the Syrians on the ground,? Kalın told German magazine Der Spiegel in an interview on Wednesday.
Turkey has launched three major military operations into northern Syria in the last five years in an effort to limit the growing influence of Kurdish fighters along the border. Meanwhile, Turkish proxy forces continue to clash with the predominantly Kurdish Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which says Turkey?s aggression undermines its continued fight against the Islamic State (ISIS).
The United States was instrumental in the creation of the SDF to battle ISIS in Syria in 2015, providing weapons, training, and air support. However, the backbone of the group?s forces are drawn from the People's Protection Units (YPG), a group historically linked to the Kurdistan Workers? Party (PKK).
Why wasn't Turkey treated the same way as Russia now, when they invaded Syria?
Turkey's intervention in Syria is more comparable to what Russia did in Ukraine in 2014, not to the current full-scale Russian invasion.
But also the First World doesn't care as much about wars in Third World countries, as they do about wars in the heart of Europe.
Surely Ukraine is also a developing country but a European one nonetheless. And it is not Third World (rather Second World).
So indeed there is a double standard, but it is not an anti-Russian double standard, it is an anti-Third World double standard.
^^^
There was no civil war in Ukraine in 2014, Russians broke peace. While Syria had already been at war before Turkey intervened.
If Poland decides to send its troops into Ukraine or Belarus, it will be similar to what Turkey did in Syria (joining an existing war).
^^^ Jaroslaw Kaczynski kind of admires Turkey. In 2014 he said that:
https://www.wprost.pl/kraj/451487/k...e-jak-turcja-ale-najpierw-zmiana-wladz-i.html
"Poland should strive to be like Turkey. Turkey has a reputation of being a serious country. We can acheve this level of greatness, but first we must replace the government [which he did in 2015] and the elites."
Come on, what's a sovereign country worth these days?! That's just US propaganda, or did they care for any sovereign country in the last decades when they wanted a regime change, partition or just crippling it? What about Erdogan in Syria? Where is the difference?
Really Riverman do I have to explain the significance? That is were our roads are dividing. Sovereignty en self-sovereignty of a nation is essential (in a democratic world order). These are imo not negotiable things and when you suggest that to authoritarian leaders than you are 'gone'.....see the Sudetencase.
Not all populists are authoritarian by the meaning of the word.
In the case of previous mentioned before they all are....and that bites liberal democracy.
The problem really is that Putin started a war which will be way to bloody and destructive to be justified by the given circumstances.
I don't see any justification in this case.
Really Riverman do I have to explain the significance?
This thread has been viewed 304420 times.