• FaeDrifter@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Again, it’s like you didn’t read the article except the tiny bits that fit your confirmation bias. It’s not saying that America is “not independent”, it’s not saying the oligarchs “control America”. It’s saying disproportionate wealth equals disproportionate power. Which should be obvious, no person should have too much wealth or too much power. That’s why the US government was designed with checks and balances built in, which is not working as well as desired, but works farrr better than you see in a dictatorship like Russia.

    There’s no secret group controlling this big US Empire of vassal states. It’s many many rich people of varying degrees of wealth (from the US or the UK or elsewhere) all fighting amongst themselves for more, and most of the time hurting the rest of us common folk in the process.

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Here’s where this turns into a low IQ conspiracy theory.

        You take a man, whose entire life and personality are devoted to business and capitalism and profit. Born with a golden spoon in his mouth, he’s in every wealthy inner circle, he even pays a ghostwriter to write him a book called “The Art of the Deal”.

        He gets voted into the single most powerful position in the US. He now has the single best position to enrich himself and his family, like he has literally devoted his life to doing. He talks to his inner advisors, they crunch him the numbers, and he decides he wants to pull out of NATO, because it costs the US more than it profits.

        I’m a business man. That’s how business works. You want to be profitable. If a deal isn’t profitable, you back out. Only keep the deals that make your business money.

        It’s a no-brainer, if NATO was the imperial profit generating machine you claim it to be, Trump would have been all over it. Trump would have expanded NATO, expanded the borders, made more wealth. That’s what Business men like Trump do. That’s why Nazis, like Tankies, are anti-NATO. Nazis don’t want to pay to protect other countries, Nazis want more power. Nazis would just invade a country, like Russia does, not tried to maintain an expensive treaty.

        If you find yourself often agreeing with Nazis on worldview and policy, you need some self reflection.

          • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I never framed NATO as a good thing, lol (reading comprehension is difficult I guess). I just pointed out that it costs the US more than it makes. Although given Putin’s invasion, the capitalists of the military-industrial complex are 100% making a profit, so I guess they can thank Putin for his choice to make them lots of money.

            True, the capitalists don’t have homogeneous interests. You can’t have an empire without an emperor - a single unchanging authoritarian leader that decides the movement for the rest of the country.

              • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                That very clearly frames NATO as a good thing since otherwise the orcs would invade you.

                I wouldn’t call anyone an orc, but Russia is an imperialist power trying to expand its border through a military invasion, so that is always something you need to consider. I don’t consider it to be a good thing to lay down and let colonizers run over you.

                NATO is not good, but Putin gives reason for NATO to not disband yet.

                Never mind the fact that NATO expansion was the reason for the war

                Lol, no. Did it influence Putin? Sure. Did it make the decision to lie about invading and then immediately after invade like he’s a helpless little puppet on strings? No.

                The $1 billion question is why isn’t Putin reaching out to create defensive treaties with his neighbors first. Why not a defense treaty with Ukraine?

                Once you can figure that out, your worldview will start to be a lot more sane.

                Late Roman empire often had demented old men as emperors who didn’t actually make any decisions.

                The US is not a late state empire like Rome. That’s a * hits bong * “what if history is just like repeating itself over and over again man” kind of take. Not that no similarities exist.

                Just list for me for how many years the US has a demented old man in charge.

                  • FaeDrifter@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The $1 billion question is why isn’t Putin reaching out to create defensive treaties with his neighbors first. Why not a defense treaty with Ukraine?

                    Because your regime ran a coup in Ukraine in 2014 and overthrew a democratically elected government to put literal fascists in power. Here’s western media reporting on your friends

                    This is astonishingly stupid, you completely sidestepped the question. Let’s assume your point about 2014 is true, that’s still 23 years Russia did not form a treaty, which would have prevented the coup. That should have been the easiest, most obvious first move to counter NATO. Instead Russia is tearing itself apart trying to keep its claws dug into a little bit of Ukrainian territory.

                    In any scenario where you create an image of the west as some kind of empire overlord powerhouse that manipulates all global events, you make Russia and ex-Soviets look hopelessly stupid and incompetent.