/liberty/ - Austro-Libertarianism

ComputerScienceDegreeCurriculum.jpg
[Hide] (43.1KB, 460x558)

>>457 (OP) 
>I think this interview made Putin look terrible.
I think it made him look far more competent than any western leader. Can you imagine this guy debating Trump or Biden or any other current year politician. He started the interview with a 30 minute lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine, last week Nikki Haley couldn't even answer a simple question on the American Civil War.

>He's clear that the war was for Black Sea access.
No he's clear that he doesn't want NATO nukes on his doorstep. If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US and park nuclear capable missile launchers on the Texas boarder you doesn't think America would be doing what Russia is doing a thousand times over? It's the geopolitical Breakfast Question.

>He doesn't have any actual proof that the U.S. did Nordstream.
I still believe is was a US-UK operation but I give Tucker credit for pushing him.

>He doesn't see the U.S. as the most powerful country anymore,
My favorite part was when he was like - yeah I haven't talked to Biden in years, why would I he's fucking irrelevant, the people you vote for are not the people who actually run your country.

>>466
>I think it made him look far more competent than any western leader. Can you imagine this guy debating Trump or Biden or any other current year politician. He started the interview with a 30 minute lecture on the history of Russia and Ukraine, last week Nikki Haley couldn't even answer a simple question on the American Civil War.
I mean, yes, but this is To Quoque fallacy.  I went into this thinking that Putin wasn't an ardent irredentist belligerant warmonger, that there was some other reason for the war, and left thinking, "Oh, he's an irredentist belligerant warmonger."
I mean, you're right that other western leaders are bad too, but, that's kind of irrelevant to my point?

>No he's clear that he doesn't want NATO nukes on his doorstep.
I mean, that was arguably already the case given how close NATO bases are even without Ukraine.

>If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US and park nuclear capable missile launchers on the Texas boarder you doesn't think America would be doing what Russia is doing a thousand times over?
China is already funding the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. and there are a number of Chinese migrants flooding across the Mexican border into the U.S. as we speak and the U.S. government appears to be aiding and abetting it, so...no I don't think the U.S. would do what Russia is doing.
But that's more because I think the U.S. government is absolutely incompetent.
Not only is it tu quoque again, it's a tu quoque that...doesn't even match with our current clown world.
>I still believe is was a US-UK operation but I give Tucker credit for pushing him.
Sort of aside from the point, but if you're interested, here's my take:  I think the primary country involved was Norway.  I wouldn't be surprised if the U.S. CIA was also involved, but I think Norway was the primary country involved.  Facts:
- Seymour Hersh's article heavily implicates Norwegian assets (The Alta minesweeper, helicopter close to the radius where you could activate the buoy, etc).  I know there were a lot of details that were wrong in the Hersh report (e.g., the Alta-class minesweeper wasn't part of BALTOPS), but damn if it doesn't match means, motive, and opportunity very well.
- The Norwegian-Polish pipeline opened up the DAY AFTER the explosion (this is the biggest tipoff to me, talk about Quo Bono).
>My favorite part was when he was like - yeah I haven't talked to Biden in years, why would I he's fucking irrelevant, the people you vote for are not the people who actually run your country.
Wasn't it a Russian czar who said, "I don't run Russia, 10000 clerks do."?
But yeah, I'm surprised this is surprising to people.

>>468
>I mean, you're right that other western leaders are bad too, but, that's kind of irrelevant to my point?
There is a difference between the US fighting wars 10,000 miles away from new york just for the lulz and russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.

>I mean, that was arguably already the case given how close NATO bases are even without Ukraine.
This has been a long time coming though. The CIA already provoked two fake revolutions in 2004 and 2014 and then funded a civil war against the russian side of ukraine for 8 years after that. Part of the problem is that western media only started covering ukraine in 2021 so normies are just like "wtf why is putin being an asshole all of a sudden" but for people paying attention it's a surprise he waited this long to do something.

>China is already funding the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. and there are a number of Chinese migrants flooding across the Mexican border
That's true but the US used literal neo-nazis to overthrew the democratically elected president on ukraine in 2014 and turned it into a western puppet state and then funded more neo-nazis and transferred isis fighters from syria to terrorize the russian people on east ukraine for 8 years. If china tried that shit in mexico the US would have nuked beijing by now.

>I think the primary country involved was Norway...
That's interesting.

WHO_IS_PUPPETEERING_VLADIMIR_PUTIN'S_INTERVIEW_WITH_TUCKER_CARLSON.mp4
[Hide] (16.3MB, 640x360, 05:48)

It's just a scripted psyop, just like the war. Learn Gematria and see the patterns.

>>469
>There is a difference between the US fighting wars 10,000 miles away from new york just for the lulz and russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.
It isn't for the lulz. We over here at Eastern Europe joined NATO exactly because we knew that the Russians invaded and held this part of the continent hostage for half a century and they will do it again. Ukraine isn't even a first, Russia was harassing Georgia since the 90s, no wonder Ukraine would lean closer to the West and the values of freedom and capitalism than the decadent remain of the Soviet Union.
The whole
>but they are invading my sphere of influence
Is just an official excuse they feed to the masses. No State, be it a superpower or not, gets to have a personalized "neutral buffer zone" where other countries aren't permitted to install weapons of any type (including nuclear weapons). And even if it was, who is to decide what is influence and what isn't. Furthermore, ICBMs are already intercontinental and can be launched from submarines literally off the shores of Russia, where active silos or troops are installed is irrelevant in modern warfare. The US was capable of sending bombers directly from America, have them carry out operations in the Middle East, and return home without touching the ground in the 90s. We are in the 2020s. Range isn't a practical concern, the real concern is Article 5, not the nukes. It's the alliances that prevent Russia from blatantly like before.
But even saying that the expansion of NATO was what "pressured" Russia into invading Ukraine or any of its neighbors is mixing up the cause and effect hard. NATO expansion only happened because Russia was such a risk to be next to, and invading Ukraine only goes to prove this. And would you look at that, Finland just joined NATO and Sweden is considering it as well. Action -> Consequence. Invading several of your neighbors, and the neighbors of those neighbors from the end of WW2 to '89 to institute socialism deporting any and all opposition preventing decades of progress -> your immediate neighbors will choose to enter into NATO to receive Western protection against you.
So what has Russia achieved? Push its neighbors into further hating it. I find the mere suggestion that the American (and German, and the wider EU) support of the Ukrainian war is "just because of the lulz" disgusting. If any country libertarian though, it's Russia. The place has been infested with generational communism, there is only violence as the means to their ends.

>>500
>It isn't for the lulz.
All US wars in the middle east are irrelevant to USA's survival.

>Eastern Europe joined NATO exactly because we knew that the Russians invaded and held this part of the continent hostage for half a century and they will do it again
You can't just throw away the context. The USSR looted trillions and trillions of dollars worth of resources and equipment at the end of the WW2 when they marched through half of europe and half of asia with zero resistance. And commies being commies they didn't spend a cent of it on their own people. That's why they could sustain such a large empire for 50 years. But as soon as the money ran out the empire collapsed too. Even if NATO didn't exist russia has no where near enough resources to invade europe again, that can't even take kiev.

>No State, be it a superpower or not, gets to have a personalized "neutral buffer zone" where other countries aren't permitted to install weapons of any type (including nuclear weapons).
The most liberal president in the US almost triggered WW3 over russian nukes in cuba.

>Furthermore, ICBMs are already intercontinental and can be launched from submarines literally off the shores of Russia,
We're not talking about ICBMs. ICBMs shoot up into the stratosphere, propel themselves over the chosen target and then fall with gravity. It takes about 20 minutes to hit any target, the time doesn't go down if you are closer. What we're talking about in ukraine are cruise missiles. They are basically nuclear bombs strapped to a jet engine. And from east ukraine they can hit moscow in under 5 minutes.

That means moscow only have minutes to react if they think they are about to be annihilated. In the old days 20 minutes was enough time to get on the red telephone and check and double check what's going on. If NATO reduces that time down to 5 minutes we are pushing the world closer to nuclear armageddon than ever before. And for what? What are you actually getting out of this?

>So what has Russia achieved?
Then can now build a DMZ through ukraine without ethnic russians in donbas and crimea being struck on the wrong side of it. That's the most likely outcome once the american paymasters instruct ukraine to make peace with russia.

commie.png
[Hide] (57.5KB, 1500x500)

>>457 (OP) 
>plainly evident that Putin really honestly believes in irredentist foreign policy.
Always has been. Make USSR great again.

>>469
>literal neo-nazis
Like Canadian Freedom Convoy or Trumpists.

>to overthrew the democratically elected president
Like the Capitol riot.

Commies always screaming about nazis.

>western puppet state
Viktor Yanukovych was Kremlin puppet.

>>466
>If China funded the drug cartels to overthrow the Mexican government and then tried to bring the new puppet regime into a military alliance against the US 
This is literally what Putin doing in Donetsk and Luhansk since 2014.

>>469
>russia fighting a war 500 miles from moscow. This is life and death from their perspective.
Not Russia. Putin's regime.

>a civil war against the russian side of ukraine for 8 years after that.
This war started by Putin's gangs.

>to terrorize the russian people on east ukraine for 8 years
People was terrorized by Putin's gangs only in Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, controlled by Putin sponsored gangs, but not in Odesa, Kharkiv, Mariupol and other Russian-speaking majority regions of Ukraine.

>Always has been. Make USSR great again.
Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak.  Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.

>>515
>Not for him to so blatantly say it
This is russian domestic narrative.

>>515
>Yeah, but, I was expecting the usual doublespeak.  Not for him to so blatantly say it and go into a two-hour EUIV monologue about it.
That's because you've been propagandized into thinking that a politician who cares about his own people and his own country is weird or unacceptable somehow.

>>522
No, it is pretty unacceptable.  The reason why is because irredentist foreign policy doesn't have a stellar track record, as it is littered with warmongerers.

>>525
>No, it is pretty unacceptable.  The reason why is because irredentist foreign policy doesn't have a stellar track record, as it is littered with warmongerers.
Lets see USA's track record just from just 1990-2020
<20 year war in afganistan
<3 wars in iraq
<drone assassinations in pakistan, yemen, afganistan, somalia
<funded al qaeda to overthrow assad (failed)
<funded al qaeda to overthrow gaddafi (successful)
<funded the houthis to overthrow the government in yemen
<switched sides and funded saudi arabia and al qaeda to get rid of the houthis (ongoing)
<tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2004 (failed)
<tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2014 (successful)
The whole premise of democratic governance rests on having an informed electorate. And you my friend are not informed. At all.

>>560
Could you please give an argument that does not rely on Tu Quoque fallacy?  Thanks.  You've done it REPEATEDLY the entire thread.

>>562
He's not wrong.

>>565
Yes, but it's beside the point.  I'm not even American.

Since you still haven't addressed all the "tu quoque" callouts, maybe you don't understand what that means, and maybe you guys understand this as "whataboutism" instead.

>>562
>Could you please give an argument that does not rely on Tu Quoque fallacy?  Thanks.
It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.

I would actually argue the opposite is true. War is a way for politicians to siphon money from the working class to the shareholders of defense corporations. A politician who put the wellbeing of his own country first would avoid war as much as possible.

>>569
>lah-di-dah let me condescendingly explain to you the fancy words I googled 5 seconds ago
I can see that being "the smart guy" is important to your identity. Just to be clear I'm not calling your stupid I am just calling you uninformed. If you get all of your news from reddit and other corporate media platforms then it is perfectly reasonable that you will not be aware of the things >>560 is referencing. If you actually knew how much of your taxmoney your government has used to fund unnecessary military interventions you would be very upset.

>>571
>It is not whataboutism because you are you one who setup this dichotomy in >>525. Your argument is that leaders who put their own country first are bad because doing so leads to war. Since you use MAGA as an insult you agree that most american presidents do not put america first. And yet america has had significantly more wars than putin. So given the facts your statement in >>525 is objectively false.
This isn't even strawmanning, because strawmanning involves at least approximating what the other person said.  This is just completely making up what the other person said.

>>560
>tried to overthrow the democratically elected government of ukraine in 2004 (failed)
Not failed. In 2004 Ukrainians successfully did «Stop the Steal». 

>overthrow the democratically elected government
Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. Anyway, you hate democracy, so why you are complaining?

The Revolution of Dignity https://vatniksoup.com/en/soups/123/ 
The Euromaidan protest, that would eventually become the Revolution of Dignity, began on 21 Nov, 2013 as a peaceful demonstration of 1500 people, summoned by a Afghan-Ukrainian journalist Mustafa Nayyem.

Only a week later Yanukovych ordered the state riot police, Berkut, to violently disperse the protest. But a few days later the rioters came back, which resulted in more violence and ultimately to a new anti-protest laws that would make future protests much more difficult.

But this law only agitated the people, and the protests weren't happening only in Kyiv - large anti-Yanukovych and pro-EU protests were also seen in other cities around Ukraine, including Lviv, Kharkiv, Ternopil, Sumy, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Mykolaiv, Odesa, Mariupol and Luhansk.

>>576
>This is just completely making up what the other person said.
If you think there is a mistake then feel free to clarify.

>>580
>Being democratically elected don't allow the president to be an asshole. 
He wasn't an asshole he just wasn't pro-NATO enough.