Increasing tensions with a nuclear superpower - smart or not?

Weirdly the narrative of "Evil Russia" is very much alive on both the Left and the Righ. You got the odd Chomsky who actually argues for a bit restraint of provoking the Russians, but in general if you read online comments or listen to NATO chiefs and politicians, you have this feeling of collective insanity.

Everyone seems to have accepted the narrative that "The Russians Must Be Stopped", and that "provocative steps are necessary to ensure peace". It seems like there's a collective amnesia about the history of the last 25 years, and everyone is just happily engaging in their happiest paranoid Cold War mindset.

First of all- the argument that we can't let a country just do whatever it wants- the world has changed.

Really.

Iraq war, anyone? Torture? Cyber attacks against a sovereign country? (An act of war, actually.) Threat of a nuclear strike against a sovereign country? (You know, a war crime in itself.) Mass surveillance even -grasp!- of foreign politicians? Bombing sovereign countries? Supporting "moderate" rebels (aka the merry men of ISIS)? Talking about and executing regime changes? Drone strikes in areas which are outside of a war zone? Assassinations? Suspension of Habeas Corpus? Supporting murderous medieval regimes who wage horrible wars in Yemen?
These things are a-OK? If the Russians put a fleet close to US coastal waters every time the Americans exercised their hyper-interventionist policies, we would have all died of a nuclear holocaust by now.

But I digress. Let's not engage in "whataboutery", as these things are labelled whenever they are brought up as an inconvenient counterpoint.

Let's focus on Russia.

Why are the Russians are so damned aggressive, you'd ask. Well, you can ask why a guy in the pub is so darn aggressive once you took his drink and tried kissing his girlfriend.

They are aggressive, because they have been provoked, idiots.

What has the NATO been doing to provoke them, you ask? After all, they're just minding their own business, not doing any hostile moves?

Well, for one, they are expanding east, in direct violation of their promise. And make no mistake: this is an aggressive move against the Russians. The NATO has not ceased its anti-Russian rhetoric since the Cold War. (Ironically this whole Cold War thing seems to be a product of American paranoia; the Soviet Union seemed to have tried to join NATO... although don't quote me on these; and they are tangential points, anyhow.)
The Russians have experienced two devastating wars from the West, and ignoring their history and their attitude (isolationist, pretty defensive and xenophobic) is stupid. They want their buffer states around them, and if you threaten this you threaten them. It's that simple. Ask the Americans about Latin America if you want to see something similar. If you look at Russian interventions they usually were defensive in nature. Even the famous Winter War started because Stalin wanted some buffer between him and the Germans.

Foreign adventures like the war against Georgia is normally brought up at this point. Too bad the narrative is a lie, is it? Funnily the truth isn't the "evil Ruskies against the poor, defenceless Georgians" as it is still touted by the media. Weird in this era of the free press, is it?

Ukraine is being brought up. Consider this: you remove a pro-Russian government with a coup, and install a pro-Western (pretty far right) one  instead, threatening their access to their only warm water port. Can I ask you something politely? What the fuck did you think would happen? Seriously. Did you expect them to just accept the fact that their direct neighbour is a pro-NATO country, while you have been putting NATO bases, radars and other "defensive" structures in Central Europe? Have you forgotten what triggered the Cuban Missile Crisis? (Hint: something to do with the nukes in Turkey.) They wanted to keep their bloody port, so they took the Crimea. You did not have to be a genius to see what would happen.

With Syria we see a similar issue. While human rights mean nothing when our dictators are trampling them (see: House of Saud), they mean everything when we can screw the Russians over. Assad might not be a pleasant individual, but he is miles ahead of the US/Saudi supported fundamentalist "moderate" rebels who not only hate Christians, they hate Muslims, too, if they don't subscribe for their own particular sect. And in this case hatred does not mean toilet papering each other's lawn. I have Syrian friends (Christian Arabs), and they all said: Assad is the best alternative. (Even the Syrian expat community in Budapest seems to think so if the window of a Syrian shop is any indication: it has a huge poster of Assad on it.) The civil war was a horrible crime the US and her allies helped to fester. It needs to stop. And the only people willing to put a stop to it is Assad and the Russians. Trump -and it pains me to say so- is right in this. Once the war is over, then the issues can be addressed; but nothing will be gained from supporting rebel fractions whom we think are "moderate". (I wonder what the "moderate" Islamic fundamentalist looks like.) Just look at what happened in Mosul after a little western meddling: the community is completely torn apart by hate.

Pushing the Russians will not help at all. Raising tensions when both sides can essentially destroy all human lives on this planet is just fucking stupid (and I apologise for the word but this is the best description I could find). What you need is de-escalation, mutual respect and a willingness to compromise. The Russians are smart enough for that; the US and her allies so far have been unable to grasp that perhaps they can't always dictate things from the position of absolute power. It works when you're pushing over little dictators you nurtured, but it does not work with a superpower. And like it or not, Russia IS a superpower, even if the Russian GDP is low. There is more to a superpower than GDP, you know. A couple of thousands of nuclear warheads will do the trick.

Mosul's corpse

You remember how the heroic US supported Iraqis are fighting for Mosul? (And how many civilians died as an unfortunate side-effect, and not as a deliberate war-crime, unlike in Aleppo where the exact same thing is happening, only the Ruskies are helping the Syrians against the rebels there?)

Well, unsurprisingly -as it happened again and again at every single US supported coup, intervention or US lead war, somehow the communities they wanted to save against the evil dictator (many times a person they have supported in the past), evil terrorists (whom they supported), etc., etc., were utterly destroyed in the process, leaving only hatred behind. Somehow these interventions are always followed by ethnic and/or religious hatred being unleashed in the communities involved. You can say that the operation was successful but the patient died.

The funny thing is -and I'm not using this word as in "hilarious"- they keep doing it, and people keep reading about it, yet nobody raises an eyebrow about this disastrous track record; it's as if the past has disappeared. It seems like people's memories are about the same as a goldfish's.

And this is why retarded, racist morons get elected for president.

The difference between war crimes and human shields -how the media and politics see the same thing through different glasses

Weird things you can read in the news.

Siege of Mosul (incredible bloodshed, street fighting and massive civilian causalities) is something that we should look at as the forces of good fighting the forces of evil. (I think ISIS is supposed to be the evil here, but given the fact that the US has been supporting these very same guys in the past makes this distinction a bit murky.)

Anyhow. Mosul is great.

Aleppo, however... at Aleppo we see the evil Ruskies and Assad massacring civilians and attacking helpless rebels who are definitely moderate, and would not chop heads off even if they could. Also: the fact that NATO is putting troops right on Russia's borders is something that will ensure peace. Definitely. How else to make sure you have peace other than provoking a nuclear power? By talking to them? Don't make me laugh. (And let's not forget who those rebels really are.)


So. There is an interesting duality how the media (and politicans) deal with bombs that kill civilians depending on who drop said bombs. We can safely conclude that victims of Western airstrikes are collateral damage only. Also, victims of weapons sold by Western powers to barbaric kingdoms and used on civilians are fine. They don't kill civilians. We're the good guys. (Things can get a bit weird when your allies murder your allies, but what the heck. Let this one slide, I say.)
But victims of Russian bombs, however, are victims of a war crime. And the Ruskies are barbarians. Let's just forget the siege of Fallujah, and the indiscriminate killing of civilians of US forces (not to mention the use of white phosphorus against human targets, which is, you know, a war crime).


It's kind of weird when the two sides do the same thing, but they are not really the same. US (or Israel) hits a hospital: oh well, mistakes are being made, sorry. And the terrorists were hiding there deliberately, anyhow, so it's not a mistake. They were also using human shield, forcing us to kill all those people, while at the same time we hit the hospital by mistake.

Ruskies hit a hospital: WAR CRIMINALS. OMG, THEY ARE TOTALLY EVIL. Poor insurgents who are forced to hide in a city against the superior force! Let's send them more weapons!


Seriously. Do a google search. I can imagine all these people's spirit discussing how one side were murdered by an evil regime, and how the other were just collateral damage. I'm sure the victims of Western bombs take a great solace in the knowledge.


It's astonishing. It's so bad, even the Independent noticed it -after several decades too late.

When are news news?

Weird stuff. Any time something happens in Hungary that can be used to put the country into negative light, the press is all over it. Yet it's absolutely not newsworthy to report about the continuation of mistreatment of Hungarian minorities abroad, and it never has been. You might argue that in Slovakia the situation is much better, but then again an American friend of mine who works there as a businessman asked me a couple of months ago why there is so much hatred against Hungarians in Slovakia, so there's that. It does not point to an improving situation.

Yesterday there was a great demonstration for the autonomy of Transylvania (well, Szekelyfold, which is part of it) within Romania. The ill treatment of Hungarian minorities are pretty well known and still ongoing in neighbouring countries: Slovakia, the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia all have their own ongoing histories of both state level discrimination.

I've only found one non-Hungarian report of this demonstration. It's funny how the fate of a minority in EU countries does not worry anyone, yet everyone is condemning an entire country when it is unable to deal with the influx of 400k people. (Weirdly when others do the same things -tightening borders, building fences, talking about defending European values-, nobody bats an eye.) I would be very curious what the reason is behind the anti-Hungarian attitudes of the Western press; after all, when the Keleti Railway station was full of migrants, the whole world was up in arms against the brutality and indifference of the Hungarian nation in general. After all, what civilized nation would allow such conditions within its own capital, asked these newspapers. Well, yesterday the French police started clearing out similar camps within Paris.

Fair enough. There's one issue here, though. I haven't even read about the existence of these camps beforehand.

I find it very curious. Apparently it's fine when the very same process is happening in France; after all, they cannot possibly as barbarous and xenophobic as the Hungarians, can they? And make no mistake, it is the very same process: a mass of people refuses to register in the country they are in, and instead opt to live under horrible conditions in makeshift camps in the hopes they could go to a more attractive country instead. You might be able to forcibly move them into closed migrant camps until they are properly registered, but that would be akin of the Holocaust. So that's out. There's not much more a state can do. It is well understood with the French or anyone else- but it's apparently not an issue when you condemn the Hungarians.


There's a clear double standard at work here- it's fine when us, enlightened Westerners do something (even when its horrendous), but god forbid something happened we don't approve somewhere else. I would be curious to know the reason.

So Sebastian Kurz told Profil that only the best educated migrants should be allowed in Austria.

(Could not find the original German article, and strangely no English reports are available on this interesting take on helping war refugees. If it helps, here's a Hungarian report of the interview.)

Let's ignore the fact that had Szijjarto said something like this on behalf of Hungary, the whole Western media would be screaming about racism and the rest.

Let's just think about the implication of this statement a bit, shall we?

Option #1: we are talking about war refugees. The Austrian minister essentially says that we only should help the well educated, rich refugees, and leave the rest to their fate.
This, if you ask me, is an insanely un-European attitude; I'd hazard to say it would justify a little international uproar. After all, this is a very cold-hearted, and frankly evil stance. We can safely say it reminds us to the darkest moments of European history.

Option #2: we are talking about economic migrants. In this case it's a fair stance, however it ignores a lot of things that should have been discussed before even one economic migrant was let over the border.
These things are:
1. why are we allowing in millions of economic migrants in the first place?
2. why did the mass of people start walking towards Europe last year?
3. why are we trying to impose hypocrisy costs on countries who refuse to allow economic migrants into their countries? You have no right trying to shame and coerce countries to accept economic migrants, after all.
4. Why nobody's talking about the costs and benefits of taking millions of economic migrants?

These question, obviously, will not be asked either by the media or the politicians. They seem to be quite content on using this sliding scale of "war refugees" and "migrants" whenever it fits their narrative, trusting that the average reader is an idiot who cannot see how he or she is manipulated. And the worst thing is that it seems to be working. Nobody stops to think about these issues; they read a short article, they take up the war cry, then move on. A couple of days later they repeat the same process with another article which is diagonally opposing to their previous opinion. It works with everything; even when these two opposing things happen at the same time: take the war crime that is the siege of Aleppo, and the heroic liberation that is the siege of Mosul.

US, Russia, war crimes and the infantile double standards that no one seems to notice

This is a real interesting phenomenon. The US and its Western allies are free to invade, bomb, assassinate, torture, fund and support "moderate rebels" (who turn out to be founding members of Al Quaida, ISIS, etc.), use civilians as human shields, target hospitals, target funerals and weddings, support bloodthirsty dictators and regimes, and starve an entire country to death (you know what the fuck is going on in Yemen? Well, a Leningrad Siege on a country scale, that's what), yet no one seems to care.

Russia, on the other hand cannot do anything without being condemned as worse than Nazi Germany. Literally. Even politicians who suggest that what the Russians are doing is not much different from what any other "great" power is doing get abused quite a lot. If you read the newspapers (which are essentially propaganda tools; gone are the days of journalism), you'll read that it's all Russia's fault. The new world war is beginning.

And yet the elephant is quite large in the room: the US and the UK has been responsible for countless bombings, regime changes, invasions, wars, and so on and so forth. Russia in comparison is lagging behind in this race; even  the most often brought up case -up to the Ukrainian land-grabt that is-, the war in Georgia seems to be pretty much supporting the Russian narrative. (It was more than hilarious how fast Western voices stopped criticising the war in Chechnya after 9/11...) And yet- when the US and its allies cause "collateral damage" by hitting civilians in a large scale (or just small scale by drones), it's fine. When they kidnap people to torture them, it's fine. When they ignite regional wars by supporting "moderate" rebels, it's fine. The very same people who are committing these acts, or keeping silent about them are up in arms when the Russians dare to support their own little puppet, and stabilize his country. Right now they are the only force in Syria that tries to quell the civil war, while the US and its allies is happily founding ISIS and other moderates. (And by moderates I mean people who like to behead others, and use kids to execute their POWs. You know; the nice kind the US has always liked to support.)

And everyone just ignores this; they behave if someone farted in the room, and pretend that they did not notice it. Are they aware that the very same policies are responsible for the migrant crisis and the increased terrorist activity in Europe? Nobody cares even when the chickens are coming home to roost. They just ignore it and keep spewing even more nonsense; like blaming Putin for the very same problems. Incredible. It's very rare when spokepersons are forced to confront this double standard, and the results are incredibly telling. How the fuck can anyone take these politicians, journalists seriously if their basic moral core is compromised so much they can only function as a bunch of partisan puppets for "their team"?

What does 100% diversity look like?

Apparently, this.

And, apparently, this is something great. I mean we have achieved our greatest goal! No negative discrimination! ONLY white women are making the decisions now! Yay for diversity...