“Russian intervention” has virtually zero impact on my life
Russia constantly sabotages the west in any way they can. Sometimes it’s obvious, like setting things on fire, other times it’s a bit more covert, like assassinating a political enemy or an up-and-coming pro-west politician. Yet other times, it’s very discreet, like when they organised “green groups” that lobbied against nuclear power in Germany and got the government to shut down the plants. As soon as that happened, the main people behind these “green groups” ended up with prominent positions in Rosneft, etc.
Then, of course, there’s all the chaos they’re sowing. They have whole bot farms designed to spread misinformation, they pay influencers to “just ask questions”, for example, about things like vaccines.
then there would start being questions asked about why we were spending such ridiculous sums of money on the military instead of using it to actually help people
I’m assuming that by “we” you mean “the US”? If so: the US is not spending that much, relative to the GDP. It’s something around 3% of the federal budget.
Hilariously, something like 15% of the federal budget goes to healthcare. You know, the one that is not free and universal and mostly “private”.
I pray for a time when western libs finally understand that the US government is not their friend and never will be, and also not to trust it to tell us who our enemies are
Just trust literally every country that got out from underneath the russian boot. Russia is the enemy of the free world. Always has been.
The US is spending more on the military than the next 9 countries combined and has continued to do so consistently even in the 90’s when there was no credible threat anywhere in the world. This is complete bullshit, you are 100% wrong.
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
Russia constantly sabotages the west in any way they can.
Nothing they do is more harmful to ordinary people than our ruling class is. The vast majority of corruption and misinformation is driven by domestic forces, not foreign ones. Russia wishes it could have anything near the influence of Fox News.
No, the main thing regarding Russia that impacts my life is the scaremongering, used to justify dumping obscene sums into the military while gutting all our social programs and trying to make us rally around the flag. If the ruling class wants me to be invested in caring about their side in “The Great Game,” then at the very least they can damn well give me my fucking healthcare. And my fucking unions. Don’t fuck me and then expect me to care about your shit. When we ask nicely for healthcare, they tell us we’re commies and to go fuck ourselves, so now this commie is telling them they can go fuck themselves, simple as.
relative to the GDP. It’s something around 3% of the federal budget.
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
I did not, in fact, “forget the rest of your sentence,” I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you’re full of shit.
the election of Trump doesn’t affect ordinary people in the slightest.
Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.
I did not, in fact, “forget the rest of your sentence,” I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you’re full of shit.
And yet you’re still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.
Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?
Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.
It used to be that the domestic bourgeoisie wouldn’t be caught spitting in the general direction of people like Trump. It used to be that a president lying about a sexual “adventure” was immediately impeached. Of course the rich wanted Trump in power (seeing as how stupid and gullible he is, they wanted to control him), but the russian psy-ops is what made him electable in the first place.
It kinda sounds like you’d just rather not believe that US citizens are dumb enough to elect a reality television host on their own.
Like, Occam’s Razor this: which is more likely?
a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century
or
US education sucks and in the face of declining living standards more and more people resent their leaders
a carefully coordinated operation carried out with near perfect competency and seemingly no setbacks or mistakes, over the course of two governments and half a century
The point is, you are describing a level of long term planning and continuity that’s frankly inhuman. Yes, Russia has ops. But the kind of power you assign to them belongs to comic books. Overstating the competency of a scary Other on the other side of the planet, while downplaying the actions of the local people and institutions that, you know, actually govern and have a much more direct influence on the trajectory of this country.
If cyrillic keyboards are so goddamn effective, then its only because the last 50+ years of our policy choices have given them such fertile ground.
You really wanna combat Russian ops? Take the trillions of dollars the Pentagon cannot account for every year, and put it in the fucking public school budgets. Make elementary school teachers better payed than football coaches.
That’s because you think of it as a singular action, instead of a massive, massive domino effect.
The op isn’t “let’s put Trump in the White House”.
The op is “let’s slowly erode the fundamentals of democracy and kindness, so that extreme views become normal, causing a growth in the divide between various political options, making even more extreme views seem natural”.
And yet you’re still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.
Yes, for reasons I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?
No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats, as I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats
The US military doctrine was: to always have enough force and force projection to be capable of fighting against two superpowers at the same time, without the fight ever reaching the US soil.
That’s why all the forward bases in Europe and the Pacific are a thing, that’s why the US has more aircraft carriers than the five next nations combined, and that’s why the “top 4 strongest air forces of the world” are “US Air Force”, “US Army”, “US Marines”, “China” (used to be russia, but then Ukraine happened).
Considering the doctrine, their spending (less than 4% of GDP) was never ludicrous.
Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong, and a big part of why I don’t have fucking healthcare.
Why the fuck do I care about “fighting two superpowers at once” (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)? Do you think I’m more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can’t afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?
The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.
Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how “reasonable” it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.
and a big part of why I don’t have fucking healthcare.
You’re AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.
US spending on military: around 4% of the federal budget.
US spending on healthcare: around 15% of the federal budget.
The US has the most expensive and the least effective healthcare system on the planet, and chucking more money down that drain won’t fix it. Policies and regulations would, but Americans are fucking allergic do both these words, so that won’t happen in the foreseeable future.
Why the fuck do I care about “fighting two superpowers at once” (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)?
No, why would it mean something it doesn’t mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?
Do you think I’m more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can’t afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?
See my response above.
The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.
It only forces potential foes to spend more, which is - coincidentally - also the goal. Unfortunately for the world, the US has elected a russian plant as president so the status quo is going to shit - now it’s Europe that must increase spending while China can relax.
Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how “reasonable”
As soon as you finally understand the difference between absolute and relative spending, you’ll see how ridiculous this sentence sounds.
it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.
NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.
Russia constantly sabotages the west in any way they can. Sometimes it’s obvious, like setting things on fire, other times it’s a bit more covert, like assassinating a political enemy or an up-and-coming pro-west politician. Yet other times, it’s very discreet, like when they organised “green groups” that lobbied against nuclear power in Germany and got the government to shut down the plants. As soon as that happened, the main people behind these “green groups” ended up with prominent positions in Rosneft, etc.
Then, of course, there’s all the chaos they’re sowing. They have whole bot farms designed to spread misinformation, they pay influencers to “just ask questions”, for example, about things like vaccines.
I’m assuming that by “we” you mean “the US”? If so: the US is not spending that much, relative to the GDP. It’s something around 3% of the federal budget.
Hilariously, something like 15% of the federal budget goes to healthcare. You know, the one that is not free and universal and mostly “private”.
Just trust literally every country that got out from underneath the russian boot. Russia is the enemy of the free world. Always has been.
The US is spending more on the military than the next 9 countries combined and has continued to do so consistently even in the 90’s when there was no credible threat anywhere in the world. This is complete bullshit, you are 100% wrong.
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
Nothing they do is more harmful to ordinary people than our ruling class is. The vast majority of corruption and misinformation is driven by domestic forces, not foreign ones. Russia wishes it could have anything near the influence of Fox News.
No, the main thing regarding Russia that impacts my life is the scaremongering, used to justify dumping obscene sums into the military while gutting all our social programs and trying to make us rally around the flag. If the ruling class wants me to be invested in caring about their side in “The Great Game,” then at the very least they can damn well give me my fucking healthcare. And my fucking unions. Don’t fuck me and then expect me to care about your shit. When we ask nicely for healthcare, they tell us we’re commies and to go fuck ourselves, so now this commie is telling them they can go fuck themselves, simple as.
You forgot the rest of the sentence I wrote. Sort that out, because your reply is off-topic as it is.
Sure, because the elimination of Germany’s nuclear power plants, or the election of Trump doesn’t affect ordinary people in the slightest.
Are you, by chance, high right now, friend?
I did not, in fact, “forget the rest of your sentence,” I spent that entire paragraph addressing how you’re full of shit.
Because Russia was the only force supporting Trump, right? Of course, the domestic bourgeoisie had no influence over that election. Right.
And yet you’re still talking about absolute costs, not relative costs.
Let me ask you this: is your stance that any country should be gradually decreasing its military spending as it grows richer?
It used to be that the domestic bourgeoisie wouldn’t be caught spitting in the general direction of people like Trump. It used to be that a president lying about a sexual “adventure” was immediately impeached. Of course the rich wanted Trump in power (seeing as how stupid and gullible he is, they wanted to control him), but the russian psy-ops is what made him electable in the first place.
It kinda sounds like you’d just rather not believe that US citizens are dumb enough to elect a reality television host on their own.
Like, Occam’s Razor this: which is more likely?
or
Why do you think it never had any setbacks?
Hyperbole, mostly. Everything has setbacks
The point is, you are describing a level of long term planning and continuity that’s frankly inhuman. Yes, Russia has ops. But the kind of power you assign to them belongs to comic books. Overstating the competency of a scary Other on the other side of the planet, while downplaying the actions of the local people and institutions that, you know, actually govern and have a much more direct influence on the trajectory of this country.
If cyrillic keyboards are so goddamn effective, then its only because the last 50+ years of our policy choices have given them such fertile ground.
You really wanna combat Russian ops? Take the trillions of dollars the Pentagon cannot account for every year, and put it in the fucking public school budgets. Make elementary school teachers better payed than football coaches.
That’s because you think of it as a singular action, instead of a massive, massive domino effect.
The op isn’t “let’s put Trump in the White House”.
The op is “let’s slowly erode the fundamentals of democracy and kindness, so that extreme views become normal, causing a growth in the divide between various political options, making even more extreme views seem natural”.
Yes, for reasons I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
No, my stance is what I already explained, that military spending should be (at most) what is necessary to maintain military parity with specific threats, as I already explained:
Apologists for the US military always try to pull out these bizarre metrics, like framing it based on GDP. Who gives a shit about percent GDP? Are you saying that richer countries ought to spend more on the military for no reason, just because they have more money to burn? It’s insanity. Military spending is meant to counter specific threats, if a small, poor country is threatened by an aggressive neighbor, they might spend more as a percentage of GDP in order to achieve something close to military parity. But when you’re spending more than the next nine countries combined, it has nothing to do with parity or security and everything to do with supremacy and domination - not to mention corruption.
The US military doctrine was: to always have enough force and force projection to be capable of fighting against two superpowers at the same time, without the fight ever reaching the US soil.
That’s why all the forward bases in Europe and the Pacific are a thing, that’s why the US has more aircraft carriers than the five next nations combined, and that’s why the “top 4 strongest air forces of the world” are “US Air Force”, “US Army”, “US Marines”, “China” (used to be russia, but then Ukraine happened).
Considering the doctrine, their spending (less than 4% of GDP) was never ludicrous.
Yes, and that doctrine is bad and wrong, and a big part of why I don’t have fucking healthcare.
Why the fuck do I care about “fighting two superpowers at once” (by which you presumably mean, fighting nine superpowers at once)? Do you think I’m more likely to die as an American because the entire rest of the world attacks us at once, or because I can’t afford to go to the doctor if I get sick?
The spending is absolutely ludicrous and forces everyone else to spend more to achieve anything resembling parity.
Fuck off with this far-right jingoism nonsense about how “reasonable” it is to try to dominate the entire world through military force.
Why?
You’re AGAIN confusing absolute spending with relative spending.
US spending on military: around 4% of the federal budget.
US spending on healthcare: around 15% of the federal budget.
The US has the most expensive and the least effective healthcare system on the planet, and chucking more money down that drain won’t fix it. Policies and regulations would, but Americans are fucking allergic do both these words, so that won’t happen in the foreseeable future.
No, why would it mean something it doesn’t mean? It means fighting both russia and China at the same time. How is it a difficult concept to grasp?
See my response above.
It only forces potential foes to spend more, which is - coincidentally - also the goal. Unfortunately for the world, the US has elected a russian plant as president so the status quo is going to shit - now it’s Europe that must increase spending while China can relax.
As soon as you finally understand the difference between absolute and relative spending, you’ll see how ridiculous this sentence sounds.
NOW it might be, thanks to Trump and the Republicans.