• mcv@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      That’s certainly what they want you to accept. What Putin wants you to believe. But this is clearly a case where US and European interests diverge. Trump wants to play nice with Putin while waging his economic war on Europe and the rest of the world, while Europe is trying to stop or slow Russian aggression. And degrading itself trying to keep Trump onboard.

      It’s a mess, but defending against aggression is still better than surrendering to it. Europe needs to learn to stand on its own feet.

      • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s certainly what they want you to accept. What Putin wants you to believe.

        The USA empire doesn’t work by having individual governments enter secret conspiracies to obey the USA in favour of their own interests. The USA government and military are just stewards of the empire, the empire doesn’t exist to benefit them.

        Ultimately the majority of oligarchs whom the USA empire exists to serve are born in Europe, or they come from European dynasties that happen to live in the USA. It’s simply a system of systemically and organically empowering those who benefit capital.

        The EU, which has incredible sway over the politics of EEA nations, is explicitly an organisation that exists to create oligarchs out of capitalists. And who are the European capitalists? Are they staunch nationalists? No of course not, they’re globalists with huge amounts of wealth tied up in USA stock exchanges. That means that with only one level of separation, the EU’s explicit mission becomes an implicit mission to strengthen the USA empire’s power over EEA nations.

        But this is clearly a case where US and European interests diverge.

        I would recommend this video to you on the topic: https://youtu.be/J_4srRdIK4k It’s recent and current, made by a person who supports social democracy, that is to say, he’s not a socialist or a Marxist. He doesn’t use marxist dialectics in his analysis but still comes to the same conclusions. I think you’ll find him more agreeable. He presents clearly without making assumptions about prior knowledge, citing all his claims, as much as possible using Western sources.