Really not feeling great about how much mainstream western punditry boils down to "What's the maximum amount we can provoke and attack Russia without starting a nuclear war? Some say the line is here, but I think it's probably further back."
I mean, like, what about Putin's recent actions suggests that this is the sort of person you want to take chances with? And not just chances, but *the most consequential chances humanly possible*?
You never quite know who's listening to who; what actual decision maker is listening to what dumbass warmongering thought leader. And just the fact that these ideas are gaining so much mainstream traction can be enough to adjust the other side's calculations in a dangerous way.
There's such a massive, MASSIVE disconnect between the unparalleled dangers we're toying with here and people's attitudes about them. In the general public, and throughout the political/media class as well. So easy to imagine an "OH SHIT IT WASN'T A GAME AFTER ALL" future moment.
No part of the way empire managers have acted up to this point suggests they can be trusted not to set off an unthinkable chain of events from which there's no return. They've been making wrong calls every step of the way. And it's so easy to fuck this up.
It reminds me of young drivers, how they'll get into accidents because they don't have a good visceral understanding of the very real risks on the road. Except instead of damaging your fender, they'll wipe out all life on earth.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
"It certainly is interesting that the fight for freedom and democracy requires so much censorship, warmongering, xenophobia, propaganda and bloodlust." caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/umm-are-we-t…
Umm… Are We The Baddies? (Audio)
"Reuters reports that Facebook and Instagram are now allowing calls for the death of Russians and Russian leaders in exemption from the platforms' hate speech terms of service due to the war in Ukraine." soundcloud.com/going_rogue/um…
"Meta Platforms will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday"
What is the argument here? That in the English-speaking world there's not enough criticism of Putin's invasion and too much criticism of NATO aggression? That if more of us scream about Putin he'll go "Ah shit I pissed off a few fringe westerners, let's cancel the war you guys"?
I don't mean to pick on Jordan specifically, I see this argument everywhere, and it just makes no sense to me. Our voices can do far more good criticizing the actions of our own governments that receive barely any criticism than those of someone else's government which gets tons.
It can't be denied that there's a major propaganda push to manufacture consent for dangerous agendas which pre-date the invasion by many years. Is my voice better used opposing those dangerous agendas, or in helping to facilitate them by saying what everyone else is saying today?
The word "detente" has been deliberately scrubbed from the western lexicon. This has created a false dichotomy where everyone thinks the only choices are either escalate until we have a nuclear war or "OMG SO JUST GIVE PUTIN WHATEVER HE WANTS AND LET HIM TAKE OVER EUROPE???"
Any time you oppose freakish world-threatening escalations that's the response you always get: "SO JUST GIVE IN TO THE BULLY AND LET HIM HAVE EVERYTHING???" They're sincerely unaware that there's a third choice between World War 3 and making Putin Emperor of Planet Earth.
This is by design, because detente and US unipolar hegemony are mutually exclusive. You can't let Russia be its own nation and also dominate the entire planet; it's either one or the other. Detente was a popular concept back when we lived in a *multipolar* world, during the USSR.
I've lost count of how many times I've seen major western institutions humiliate themselves with propaganda glorifying Ukrainians who on closer examination turn out to be neo-Nazis. It's a daily occurrence now.
The US empire has had a standing policy of preventing the rise of any rival superpowers since the USSR collapsed. Both Moscow and Beijing have refused to kiss the imperial ring and crippling Russia is an essential part of hamstringing China's rise. This was all planned years ago.
Gilbert Doctorow described back in 2017 how Moscow and Beijing have formed a mutually beneficial "tandem" based on their respective strengths; Russia as a major military force willing to confront the US empire, and China as a rising economic superpower. consortiumnews.com/2017/10/23/rus…
Empire architects had previously expected that Moscow would be forced to pivot to Washington and become a member state of the empire. The fact that it chose Beijing instead to retain its sovereignty is what set all this in motion.
I reckon it's not about fweedom and democwacy at all but is in fact really all about uniting the entire planet under one power structure by working to absorb all countries into the US-centralized empire and toppling any government that refuses.