I guess in this case fighting against the commen greater enemy is more important in the current situation.
Are you suggesting, that this anti-facist group should shoot the azov nazis?
Sh3Rm4n
joined 4 years ago
Not to say that Russian propaganda is very much alive and repeated as well all the time.
I agree in some points, e.g. that Ukraine is a very corrupt state.
Right wing extremists clearly have huge influence
I heard otherwise, not that they have no influence. But "clearly" a "huge influence" sounds wrong as well. Can you are least be a little more specific how significant you think these influences are?
with all the high ranking government officials having direct financial ties to the oligarchs in US
do you refer to the panama papers?
Intially you wrote (at the second top level of this thread):
before the west decided they needed a color revolution and a government full of nazis.
which implies some big western conspiracy, which I think is wrong and a too simplistic view.
That's why I started the discussion.
"fact" ... again. Your rethoric get's repetitive really quickly.
It is pretty obvious you are arguing in favor of Russia's agenda and against that of the west.
But who is the "west", is it the current Ukraine government, the people of the Ukraine? Is it the NATO or specifically the US or is it Europe? East Europe, West Europe? ...
That's not really that easy, especially before the war "the west" had so many different interests and goals when it comes to the Ukraine-Russia conflict that I'd argue that "the west" is pretty much an absolute term which just simplifies the situation too much.
One of the simple tricks the @lemmygrad users like to do as well to create a simple black and white world view to mobilize and pull out the pitch forks. A kind of rethoric I really don't like.
It is telling that the one source you name is from Ivan Katchanovski, a highly controversial figure whose arguments seem to be very one-sided and support the narrative of russian propaganda. (Not sure how legitimate that claim is though)
However, I find the introduction and the conclusion of your source surprisingly neutral on a level of which I also like this discussion to be, not this simple:
"They were all Nazis", "a fact"
Even saying that someone is a Nazi is not that easy to interpret as you hope it do be. What I mean by that is, a Nazi when talking about the war from Russia against the Ukraine could be a extreme Ukrainian nationalist or a extreme Russian nationalist.
Both of these exist, both of these took part at the beginning of the conflict, both of these have troops and "brigades" in the current war on either Russian or Ukrainian side.
I don't say you are totally wrong, but in complex conflicts like these you can't just claim facts and absolute truths. It's just not that simple.
I didn’t make any absolute claims. I said that the government the west installed after the coup was full of nazis which is a fact.
...
I am not whitewashing nazis and I'm very much aware that nazis and other nationalists took part of the color revolution, which is a sad reality.
I just really don't like your absolute claims which in subtext say that the color revolution was led by, and the resulting government is full of nazis and additionally say that this is a fact! AFAIK this is just not true.
Why do you think that Mélenchon lost his credibility?
And it sounds like you'd rather want Le Pen in charge instead of Macron, is that correct?
"full of nazis" is not a fact you can just state as the truth. You always conveniently forget the nuance's when talking about "facts" which do fit your view.
Ukraine has been in a civil war since the coup in 2014, the extremists US put in power have done things like banning the use of Russian language. This hasn’t played well with a huge Russian speaking population in the east.
Isn't it the other way around in the donbass region, since ~2014?
What credibility was he losing when he called for a tactical vote which favors him the most? If the vote is only between Macron and Le Pen and the poll were so close you could not risk to not vote, it is obviously better for Mélenchon to call to vote for Macron and therefor against Le Pen.
Its a pure tactical move and I think also a more practicle solution to have Macron as president as opposed to Le Pen for Mélenchon but especially for NUPES
Proving propaganda by using propagandistic tools
This article is strange: Does the headline even fit to the article?
I don't see any statement of Chomsky in the article, where he states why NATO should immediately disband.
The first half is a brief fair criticism of military spendings of the USA and the second half a very brief explanation about the bush administration wanting Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO.
It seems like the article just gave a quick overview of Chomsky's talking points but neither goes into depth nor explains anything about Chomsky's positions.