US Politics

I didn't know they were always that bad.

If one team of supporters just wants to watch a game and the other team is known to constantly get violent and outright attack others it's not exactly the same two sides...

It's hard to tell if people who got attacked were all really just walking back (maybe not physically attack but monitor) or many were continuing the shit behaviour and residents rightly felt threatened.

The people talking to Dutch media of course were pleasant. I mean, zero story in "hooligans get chased out of area" also the hooligans are hopefully all arrested and fined / deported.

If people are scared they may just not always defend themselves with "can you please go thank you" and things get heated but what do you expect? Some media really equates that with premeditated bigotry?

Sheesh. I didn't see that sorta crap on Dutch news but I haven't dug too much.

Maybe you guys could keep discussion of football violence out of the US politics thread?

Sure, but it was directly related to the discussion. Sky News' about turn on a story, pushed by a pro Zionist editor is ... Pravda. We were just talking facts

It would hardly be surprising if Dutch media hadn't covered themselves in glory in this either, given the statements of Dutch politicians, both mainstream and Wilders / far right.

The eye witness accounts are pretty clear though for anyone spending a few minutes looking for them.

Another point is that loads of these guys are Israeli army reservists who have been called up (many have been outed as such on social media). Attacking and intimidating civilians on racial grounds is literally their day job. And they did similar in Athens recently, apparently.

For the mainstream media to try to make them sound the victim was just too big a stretch. But it's not credible that this would be a one off, more likely an example of what the media gets away with most of the time with slightly more believable lies.

Back on topic, that's why trump's 'fake news' allegations cut through - there is genuine substance there, and we are seeing more and more of it all the time.

Back to trump, I liked this description from Caitlin Johnstone, I feel similarly:

"The only thing I like about Trump is exactly what so many empire managers hate about him: he gives the game away. He says the quiet parts out loud. He's the only president who'll openly boast that US troops are in Syria taking the oil or lament that they failed to take the oil from Venezuela, or just come right out and tell everyone he's bought and owned by Zionist oligarchs.

Trump is the opposite of Obama, who was very skillful at putting a pretty face on the evil empire. Trump puts a very ugly face on a very ugly thing. He is a much more honest face to have on the empire. A crude, stupid plutocrat who is owned by other plutocrats is the perfect representative of that tyrannical power structure."

https://x.com/caitoz/status/1854974456340566390?t=PE82fRPsv_cfzjI4xUKV7Q&s=19

Thing is, he is also mates with Putin and happily supporting suppressing people's rights. I see people arming themselves now on USA groups I'm on due to the agenda of his republican party.

So if the USA has decided it's irredeemably ugly, things will get ugly I fear. For the small people. Not the oligarchs.

(Though some rep states actually are reasonable socially liberal cos usa big etc.)

He's not mates with Putin.

He has an interest in closing down the Ukraine debacle because a. it's a lost cause, b. he can make the Dems take the blame for it if he does it straight away and c. it's not that important for the US anyway, and he needs to focus all his resources on rivalry with China, which is existential for the US.

But he's deluded if he thinks what he says he thinks, that the Russians will accept anything short of unconditional surrender / them dictating the terms and taking whatever territory they want / where the population will vote for it (ie Odessa, karkov, etc).

he's deluded if he thinks what he says he thinks, that the Russians will accept anything short of unconditional surrender / them dictating the terms and taking whatever territory they want / where the population will vote for it (ie Odessa, karkov, etc).

That is why I think Ukrainians (and their supporters) should not be so pessimistic about a Trump presidency. His ceasefire plans are unworkable and negotiations are likely to last a lot longer thant 24 hours. This favours Ukraine because Putin's insane wartime spending cannot continue indefinitely and Trump will not lift sanctions until Putin agrees to his deal. Trump wanted to take troops out of Afghanistan as soon as he became president. It actually took 4 years.

There is no possible outcome which is more favourable to Ukraine than surrendering as soon as possible to stop the killing and devastation.

Russia can keep spending at its current rate for as long as it wants to. Its economy has grown faster during the war than before, its military production has ramped up. The sanctions have hurt Europe far more than they have hurt Russia by depriving it of the cheap energy its model depended on. They have hurt the US by hastening the end of the dollar as reserve currency - which is the big thing on the horizon and will make the financial crisis look like a blip. They also cost the Dems this election because they caused the inflation which was the leading issue for Rep voters.

The US has already decided that it cannot continue its spending, and the Europeans have to decide if they double down or stop too. Everyone - apart from Russia - is looking for a way out to avoid losing face - which is why the negotiations will take time. A few tens of thousands more Ukranians will need to die while they work that out.

Putin has largely pivoted the Russian economy to trading with China / Asia, the global south / BRICS and trading without the dollar. He'd like the sanctions lifted - and he'd like the frozen assets back - but he doesn't need it - certainly not as much as Germany needs it, and he won't compromise (much) to achieve it.

Zelensky staked the future of his country and the lives of a generation of his countrymen for personal fortune and a seat at the table with the big boys, and he lost, catestrophically.

The US doesn't officially have troops in Ukraine so should be a lot quicker to disengage than Afghanistan.

Zelensky staked the future of his country and the lives of a generation of his countrymen for personal fortune and a seat at the table with the big boys, and he lost, catestrophically.

Eh? Russia invaded Ukraine.

I don't know where to start with this, it's so full of falsehoods.

Zelensky staked the future of his country and the lives of a generation of his countrymen for personal fortune and a seat at the table with the big boys, and he lost, catestrophically.

But this point really takes the biscuit. Zelensky's popularity amongst Ukrainians is incredibly high because he's not fled the country or enriched himself, but has stayed and led.

Europe (and the US) has to show Putin (and other dictators with similar ambitions) that invading a sovereign nation is unacceptable and has consequences.

You paint a very rosy picture of an economy running at 9% inflation with interest rates at 20%. The military expenditure has come at the cost of taxing resource extraction and cannibalising civilian expediture . Gas prices are back to pre-spike slump and Russian oil trades at a discount.

I don’t know enough (I’m guessing no one does) to say how long russia can continue but the view that their current state is sustainable seems very optimistic (for russia)

There is no possible outcome which is more favourable to Ukraine

Not to be that guy but... in the context of your post I think you need to start by defining Ukraine.

If you mean a geographic area holding people that speak Ukrainian your post makes absolute sense (aside from a lot of assumptions about the limits of Russia expansionism).

Europe (and the US) has to show Putin (and other dictators with similar ambitions) that invading a sovereign nation is unacceptable and has consequences.

I'm not a fan of Putin. However I see two big flaws in what you are saying:

1. In practice, invading other countries has no comebacks if you are strong enough. Google list of countries invaded by the US. Then do the UK.
   
2. Ukraine is not as black and white as you suggest.
   
   

It's easy to have a simplistic view of history if you assume it started at a particular date, and that it started on that date for no reason at all other than xxx is a baddie.

But that is never what happens. To understand Ukraine, at the very least you have to start with the orange revolution and the Minsk accords. Russia was pretty much backed into a corner and didn't have much choice if it didn't act when it did.

Please do point out any falsehoods - we're all learning all the time.

to say how long russia can continue but the view that their current state is sustainable seems very optimistic

I guess the question is whether Russians today will wear the drop in living standards they once did.

People often say the deal the Russian people did with Putin was to provide them with economic stability and a restoration of national pride. OK he's falling on one of those, but 9% inflation is still nothing compared to post-collapse of the Soviet Union.

And what did they actually do in the end? Elect someone different when they were given the opportunity.

My guess is that you'd need extreme levels of suffering first. And even then, that would likely trigger the states with separatist aspirations before Russia proper.

You paint a very rosy picture of an economy running at 9% inflation with interest rates at 20%.

The figures don't lie.

High inflation is because demand is high, and they've pushed up interest rates to try to dampen down demand. Hardly a sign that the economy is struggling.

They've been way more successful in coping with sanctions than I expected - and certainly than US/EU expected.

1 Attachment

you need to start by defining Ukraine

Yes, I mean the Ukranian people.
I accept that the Zelensky regime possibly has interests in it continuing.

Why do you seem to think zelensky is some kind of dictator?

I guess the question is whether Russians today will wear the drop in living standards they once did.

Yes, if Russia was suffering there would be pressure on Putin. But there is no drop in living standards. Russia is booming. It has abundant raw materials and it has markets for them.

Why do you seem to think zelensky is some kind of dictator?

Because his term as president has expired. He has declared martial law and is ruling without democratic legitimacy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn007p39zdzo

He has outlawed most of the opposition.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2022/3/21/why-did-ukraine-suspend-11-pro-russia-parties

How do their pensions work though?

That was a big issue in the 90s when people's savings and pensions became worthless. Would there not be a similar compounding issue over time now?

Either way though China has their back and as you say they have plenty of raw materials.

Dunno, but I just googled this: Putin's never been more popular, so they can't be too pissed off.

1 Attachment

There is no possible outcome which is more favourable to Ukraine than surrendering as soon as possible

What a disgraceful post. You must be getting your 'information' from some very weird people.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that if the media will lie to us about a few football hooligans tearing up in Amsterdam, how can we be sure they don't also lie to us about other, bigger stuff?

Actually, when you dig into it a little bit and search down facts, it's pretty clear that they do lie.

disgraceful

What exactly is 'graceful' about cheering on the deaths of half a million people?

I reference my sources. Why do you say the World Bank, the BBC, Al Jazera, etc are 'weird' ?

But all means persuade me with facts, but once you start trying to shame people into changing their views in the face of evidence, you have lost.