https://twitter.com/Rrrrnessa/status/1505209686064312326 <https://twitter.com/Rrrrnessa/status/1505209686064312326>
chr > Am 11.03.2022 um 18:18 schrieb w <w...@thing.net>: > > Could not agree more with Stefan's comment. One more thing to > consider, all the tax money the EU countries are pumping into this > failed country are only a fraction of what the oligarchs are pumping > out into their tax haven accounts. > > But it doesn't matter, the US propaganda machine has fully succeeded in > painting everything and everybody into blue and yellow. > > The way the different realities are constructed reminds me a bit of The > Matrix. I suggest to refrain from taking any pills, be they red or > blue (or yellow for that matter). > > Wolfgang Streek wrote an excellent essay on the "Fog of War." > > https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/fog-of-war > Greetings from the Lower East Side, > > Wolfgang > > > > > On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 10:42 +0100, Stefan Heidenreich wrote: >> why not cutting stuff short: >> the war is going brilliantly. 3 goals have alread been achieved >> >> 1) keep the Russians out >> 2) the Americans in >> 3) the Germans down. >> (Lord Ismay) >> >> Now, please: harshest sanctions ever, in order to also reach the last >> goal: >> 4) Fuck the EU! (Nuland) >> >> Mission almost accomplished! >> s >> >> Am 10.03.2022 um 17:52 schrieb Ted Byfield: >>> Felix gets it, imo. >>> >>> Not sure about elsewhere, but the 'special relationship left' — the >>> US certainly and the UK as well, I think — has been stuck in a rut. >>> OT1H hard-ish doctrinaire 'anti-imperialist' formations robotically >>> denounce NATO in the monolithic, one-sided terms Felix points out; >>> OT0H milquetoast centrists revert to form and support all kinds of >>> aggressive action, if not outfight belligerence (yet), with little >>> or no introspection about how that relates to their other earlier >>> stances. Both are backward-glancing in a way that Corey Robin put >>> well a week ago on Facebook: >>> >>>> God, I hate left debates about international politics. More than >>>> any other kind of debate, they never have anything to do with the >>>> matter at hand but, instead, always seem to involve some attempt, >>>> on all sides, to remediate and redress some perceived failure or >>>> flaw of politics past. >>> >>> I don't think the left will make much progress until it gets over >>> its post-'70s anxiety over the use of force — always coercive, >>> sometimes violent — to achieve its political ends. Until then, >>> it'll necessarily marginalize itself with anti-statist denialism >>> masquerading as warm-fuzzy idealism. The way out? Ditch the >>> genealogical-moral hand-wringing and accept the fact that human >>> institutions, all of them, are deeply flawed, but each in their own >>> unique way. A bit like what Tolstoy said of families: All happy >>> families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way. >>> >>> The question is how can we work with the institutions we have >>> toward *better* (NOT 'the best') political ends — in this case, >>> fostering conditions that help Russian populations (very plural) to >>> try once again to remake their society in more sustainable, fairer >>> ways. If we had more than one major multilateral alliance and were >>> asking which would be better suited to realizing that end, fine, >>> let's debate whether NATO is the better choice; but we don't, >>> really, so scholastic debates about whether NATO is Good or Evil >>> lead nowhere. >>> >>> Are McDonald's and Coke "Good"? No. Is their withdrawal from Russia >>> the right thing in moral and practical terms? Yes. That wasn't so >>> hard, now, was it? Why would we discuss NATO in any different way? >>> Because, being a multilateral entity that's ultimately grounded in >>> democratic national governments it "represents" us more than >>> McDonald's and Coke? Good luck arguing that. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Ted >>> >>> On 10 Mar 2022, at 7:21, Felix Stalder wrote: >>> >>>> On 10.03.22 06:02, Brian Holmes wrote: >>>>> Here's the thing though. Should Nato really have denied entry >>>>> to all those Eastern European states that requested it? >>>>> Remember that most of those states, they had been taken over >>>>> but not absorbed by the Soviet Union. They lived for decades >>>>> under significant degrees of political repression. Did they >>>>> have a valid reason to want to join Nato after 1989? Looking at >>>>> the brutality of the current war, it seems suddenly obvious to >>>>> me that they did -- and by the same token, I have suddenly >>>>> become less certain of what I always used to say, that Nato is >>>>> an imperialist war machine that should be disbanded. Russia is >>>>> also an imperialist war machine, for sure (and the two owe each >>>>> other a lot). But maybe China is also an imperial war machine? >>>>> And India, maybe not yet? >>>> >>>> I don't think that NATO ever was an imperialist war machine. The >>>> US doesn't really need NATO for it's imperialist projects in >>>> Latin America or Asia. >>>> >>>> NATO, it seems to me, was always a "cold war" war machine, aimed >>>> at confronting the SU/Russia, primarily in Europe. To the degree >>>> that this confrontation was not seen as vital after 1990 (either >>>> because the US read geopolitics as uni-polar, or the Europeans >>>> believed in trade leading to peace) NATO languished. Irrelevant >>>> for Trump, brain-dead for Macron, not worth investing for the >>>> Germans. >>>> >>>> For the Eastern European countries, for very understandable, deep >>>> historical reasons, "confronting Russia" remained a vital concern >>>> also after the end of the cold war, hence NATO was always seen >>>> crucially important and they entered NATO voluntarily. >>>> >>>> History has born them out, but was that really inevitable? Of >>>> course not, because nothing ever is, but the miss-conception of >>>> geopolitics as unipolar is certainly a big factor in this. >>>> >>>> But the paradox is, to develop a real peace architecture in >>>> Europe, NATO would have had to deny Eastern European countries >>>> membership and work on some kind of large block-free zone between >>>> itself and Russia. I'm not sure such a project would have been >>>> popular in Poland, though. >>> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >>> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >>> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >>> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >>> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >>> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: >>> >> # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission >> # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, >> # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets >> # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l >> # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org >> # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: > > # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission > # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, > # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets > # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l > # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org > # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nett...@kein.org # @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
