Not a purity test. I watch Pakman and Kyle Kulinski and the Majority Report. But, they don’t claim to be a libertarian socialist. It’s about honesty. Maybe he’s just confused. But for someone who has read “all theory,” I find his position on NATO dishonest.
And a real democratic socialist thinks russian imperialism is… Good? I mean you can’t even pretend Ukraine is NATO’s fault because they’ve been invading neighbors for over 20 years.
All imperialism is bad. A person can be against Russian imperialism, American imperialism and NATO. NATO’s original mission was a check on the socialism of the Soviet Union. Source.
Today,
Instead of being for collective self-defense, NATO is a means for several of the most powerful states in the world—including the US, Canada, the UK, France, and Germany—to maintain global control of people and resources to serve western capitalist interests. Source
Simply, as a socialist, you can’t be anti-capitalist and pro-NATO. Vaush is not a socialist. He’s a social democrat at best, which is fine. But don’t lie to your audience and misrepresent yourself.
Hypothetically? It’s impossible to guess what would have happened 30 years ago if NATO had dissolved. But if I had to theorize:
If NATO had dissolved, Ukraine would still be a vassal state of Russia under Yanukovych. So, Russia would never have invaded.
But, even if the Maidan happened. Ukraine could still get help from Europe and America without NATO.
If China and the BRICS countries formed a military defensive alliance to secure their interests through trade, would Vaush be in support of that kind of imperialism? If the answer is No, then, why?
Ukraine could still get help from Europe and America without NATO.
Nope, America slashed military spending and can only defend their continental holdings. Europe has to cover it all. Wait does that make them imperialist now?
If China and the BRICS countries formed a military defensive alliance to secure their interests through trade, would Vaush be in support of that kind of imperialism? If the answer is No, then, why?
I don’t like vaush enough to defend him across a whole thread. But personally I don’t think you can use a defensive alliance to invade soverign countries without provocation, which is what I assume the end state would be if BRICS formed a military alliance.
Also let’s pretend Iraq didn’t happen. That one’s on Bush.
People act like nato is some crazy imperialist project that the US psyops countries into wanting to join, when in reality they just want access to weaponry and protection from Russia. Sweden joined up fast after Ukraine got invaded. Poland ordered a shitload of HIMARS as well. Russia acts like all its neighbors seeking security from invasion (Chechnya twice, Georgia, Ukraine) is some grand plan to encircle them and… Invade?
If the implication is that capitalism is the only thing standing between dictators and unfettered expansion, I guess I’m late to my appointment to lick Jeff bezos’ boots because good lord do I love capitalism.
Oh imperialist expansionism forced Russia to invade a soverign country huh?
But no go ahead and keep purity testing, see how that works for you.
Not a purity test. I watch Pakman and Kyle Kulinski and the Majority Report. But, they don’t claim to be a libertarian socialist. It’s about honesty. Maybe he’s just confused. But for someone who has read “all theory,” I find his position on NATO dishonest.
And a real democratic socialist thinks russian imperialism is… Good? I mean you can’t even pretend Ukraine is NATO’s fault because they’ve been invading neighbors for over 20 years.
All imperialism is bad. A person can be against Russian imperialism, American imperialism and NATO. NATO’s original mission was a check on the socialism of the Soviet Union. Source.
Today,
Simply, as a socialist, you can’t be anti-capitalist and pro-NATO. Vaush is not a socialist. He’s a social democrat at best, which is fine. But don’t lie to your audience and misrepresent yourself.
OK, I’ll let you have it because I have a separate question.
So in the ideal socialist land where nato disbands and the US is no longer the world police… Who stops Russia?
Hypothetically? It’s impossible to guess what would have happened 30 years ago if NATO had dissolved. But if I had to theorize:
If NATO had dissolved, Ukraine would still be a vassal state of Russia under Yanukovych. So, Russia would never have invaded.
But, even if the Maidan happened. Ukraine could still get help from Europe and America without NATO.
If China and the BRICS countries formed a military defensive alliance to secure their interests through trade, would Vaush be in support of that kind of imperialism? If the answer is No, then, why?
Nope, America slashed military spending and can only defend their continental holdings. Europe has to cover it all. Wait does that make them imperialist now?
I don’t like vaush enough to defend him across a whole thread. But personally I don’t think you can use a defensive alliance to invade soverign countries without provocation, which is what I assume the end state would be if BRICS formed a military alliance.
Also let’s pretend Iraq didn’t happen. That one’s on Bush.
People act like nato is some crazy imperialist project that the US psyops countries into wanting to join, when in reality they just want access to weaponry and protection from Russia. Sweden joined up fast after Ukraine got invaded. Poland ordered a shitload of HIMARS as well. Russia acts like all its neighbors seeking security from invasion (Chechnya twice, Georgia, Ukraine) is some grand plan to encircle them and… Invade?
So… you’re a fan of capitalism?
If the implication is that capitalism is the only thing standing between dictators and unfettered expansion, I guess I’m late to my appointment to lick Jeff bezos’ boots because good lord do I love capitalism.
🤷