Really takes the piss. Imagine how many people have died in dinghy’s trying to get to Dover.
Geopolitics
- Thread starter Mciahel Goodman
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
Really takes the piss. Imagine how many people have died in dinghy’s trying to get to Dover.
And you are over-estimating their numbers, reach and appeal. Azov was legislated to have up to 12,000 serving members, of whom 10-20% are suspected to be neo-nazis today (Al Jazeera estimates the battallion's numbers to be around 900..I have no idea, take it or leave it, there are probably more now). That's a very small number in a country of 44 million. They even have some members of Jewish ancestry. The battalion's leader has expressed admiration for Israel and suggests it should be a role model for Ukraine (although that could be good or bad from a blood purity/race perspective
)Those foreign far-right types that came over are small in number, too. I go back to my comment on the great thing about neo-nazis being so fringe. Yes they can be scary when you see them up close but society does not accept them nor will it tolerate them moving inward from the fringes they currently occupy.
We should also consider the historic abuses that Russia has committed in Ukraine and that this may make certain elements of nazism appealing there. It's actually a bit hypocritical because German nazis would have considered Ukrainians (and most other neo-nazis worldwide but that's another discussion) untermensch but for Azov the alignment to neo-nazism has the benefit of unsettling Russia and the battalion was born when Russia was again beginning to abuse Ukraine.
I'll also note that the US and Canada have refused to provide training to Azov since 2015 due to their association with neo-nazi ideology.
I've discussed this one before but am happy to offer additional context. It's not like Azov are threatening to shoot real Muslims with those bullets. The Kadyrovsty are fake Muslims who deserve the very worst the world has to offer and, if their belief system is true, would never merit a place in paradise due to their earthly activities of murder, rape, torture and kidnapping, all performed with relish at a systemic level. This is wartime and you use every means to unsettle your enemy. Let's see what happens if Ukraine are fortunate enough to survive. The country is, after all, fighting for its very existence.
edit: added some active force numbers
Last edited:
To be fair despite the Minsk agreement, Ukraine and Russia have been essentially in conflict since 2014. Azov is a big part of that. They might not fade away but I can't see them growing in prominence like black and brown shirts in the 1930s moving from paramilitary groups to political parties to forming governments and consolidating power in a dictator.
Which part - two party system or bought up media?
Cant really see how the two party system is cynical it’s just a statement of fact. Any reasonable voter would instantly seek to have it that their vote, regardless of which party, would count towards the election of government officials. But obviously it doesn’t. The two main parties have such a stranglehold on it that the political will to change it is effectively null, despite the obvious wishes of the ‘democratic’ citizens. What’s left not to be cynical about with that? And it’s probably even worse in the US.
Regarding: bought media, possibly. There’s nothing to stop any Tom dick or harry setting up a news website now and we have choice on where we get our news, don’t have to use a vpn to access legitimate sources etc. However, there is a large contingent of established media bought by people like Murdoch and uset to unsubtly push a political agenda. It’s hardly news,
in conclusion, liberal democracy is oversold. Anyone pushing a far left agenda would be instantly shot down, not by voters, but the two main political parties and a massive chunk of the mainstream media. There is no conceivable platform on which such a campaign could gain any traction whatsoever. It’s not cynicism it’s reality. I don’t necessarily advocate a far left perspective myself for what it’s worth, but let’s at least acknowledge reality.
Having listened to a fair bit of Mearsheimer’s talks I would take issue with your use of ‘should’.He doesn’t say what the Russians should do. He said (and quite compellingly said this 8 years ago) exactly what they will/would do and was correct. The West has led Ukraine ‘up the primrose’ path in his words, letting them believe their situation is more secure than it was. Despite a very aggressive invasion, there’s not a single NATO foot on Ukrainian ground, no NFZ and the most pressure they can exert is probably only serving to force Russia into the arms of China, the real elephant in the room. The wests silence by lack of riposte is deafening. It’s not about morality, Ukraine is just not an area of enough strategic importance.
Also a debunking of his ideas that relies on a lot of emotive insulting language like ‘decrepit’, ‘stupid’ isn’t best way to convince people attempting to think rationally he is wrong. I suggest you explain exactly why his ideas are so bad and put forth something that is more robust in its place.
I wasn't involved in this thread (my post from the Ukraine thread was posted in here) and don't really plan to argue about James Mearsheimer. I've read enough of his work (and Walt) and about offensive realism to think it's a simplistic and flawed lens to interpret all of international relations through. It fails to account for far too many inputs and attributes a fantastical unitary structure to states that doesn't exist in reality. Mearsheimer's realism posits that Ukraine and other former Soviet states must be either within Russia's sphere of influence or permanently at risk or victim of Russian domination. I didn't waste a further 45 minutes of my life on listening to him. He's being trotted out by the Russians and Tankies to justify Putin's actions and to vilify NATO because it suits their agenda.
Here's the interview I referenced.
Too soon to tell. There is a very lively debate in Finland.
And you are over-estimating their numbers, reach and appeal. Azov was legislated to have up to 12,000 serving members, of whom 10-20% are suspected to be neo-nazis today ...The battalion's leader has expressed admiration for Israel and suggests it should be a role model for Ukraine (although that could be good or bad from a blood purity/race perspective
Many neo-mazis in Europe love how the regime in Israel oppresses Palestinians. It represents the fulfillment of some of their fantasies. Can you guess who wrote the following in his manifesto?
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques
For all the talk of the KGB, I find it incredible how the CIA escapes criticism for all the abhorrent shit they've done. But it's done in the name of 'democracy' so I guess it's fine
For all the talk of the KGB, I find it incredible how the CIA escapes criticism for all the abhorrent shit they've done. But it's done in the name of 'democracy' so I guess it's fine
It didn't flee from either. The ending of the Iraq war was as a result of a biliateral agreement between both countries and the withdrawal from Afghanistan was out of a lack of interest in remaining there. The US could've easily remained in both countries if there was an interest to do so and in fact still has thousands of troops in Iraq today. (A topic for the Geo-politics thread of course).
Definitely fled Afghanistan, see news reports last year for hours of footage of it doing so. Iraq it left unloved and softened up for Iranian domination, whether 'bilaterally agreed' or not. The perception that the west is spent through, among other things, these two conflicts as well as better informed but flabby, dopamined-up populations unwilling to risk the kind of casualty numbers that a major conflagration would create is, I am certain, part of Putin's blind faith in this mess. (Though I do agree it's for the other thread, but the comparison came up in casualty figures for Rus/US troops.)
I spent 7 years in both countries and trust me, there was no fleeing at all. The US could've stayed in either if it wanted to. The Afghanistan withdrawal was admittedly bungled due to a miscalculation of how quickly the Taliban would return, which was a result of Trump's timeline to leave and Biden not being adequately prepared to deal with the suddenness of what happened. The US could've of course opted to stay and obliterate the Taliban advances yet again, but decided not to.
Yeah, I can see that there would be elements that they would like.
It's contradictory to the ideology, though, and for me is further evidence that these groups are nothing more than thugs and a long way from bring actual nazis.
An enemy of an enemy is a friend. With the rise of Islamophobhia in Europe, it's probably not surprising.
In the same way the US had no right to implement regime changes in Latin America a dozen times.
Spheres of influence.
Remind me again when the US unilaterally invaded a Latin American country?
My eyes just rolled so hard I about knocked myself out. Take the whataboutism somewhere else.
Massively different to be fair. What Us did is similar to Putin’s support for Lukashenko (who lost the elections but remained in power), rather than brutally invading a sovereign country cause you don’t like their politics.
So only once, then, in a place where 92% of the population wanted them to. Not quite the same is it.
No, it isn't.
It's quite obvious once the outrage dissipates a little. The Ukrainian refugees are pre processed and accepted prior to arrival, the government has no idea who is coming across the Channel.
I’ve worked with the Home Office and UKVI team over the last few years. Trust me when I say, Afghan refugees were given the short(est) straw when compared to Ukrainians. And that’s from the last 3-5 months I’m talking about. I can go on and on about our border policies if we want to stretch the timeline further back.
I'm sure they are and the global sentiment towards the Ukraine invasion was always going to mean corners are cut for them, but that Instagram post about why can't Eurostar just offer up free seats to anybody? It's nonsense attention seeking.
Why couldn’t Eurostar open up free seats to Afghan refugees? Genuine question.
Well there was Iraq and Vietnam as well, even if you don't want to count the many times they've given weapons and money to dictators/armed forces who kill innocent people.
It would be illegal for them to do so.
This is a horrible horrible read.
CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach interrogators torture techniques
Newly declassified documents reveal Ammar al-Baluchi was repeatedly slammed against a wall while naked until all trainees received ‘certification’
A detainee at a secret CIA detention site in Afghanistan was used as a living prop to teach trainee interrogators, who lined up to take turns at knocking his head against a plywood wall, leaving him with brain damage, according to a US government report.
The details of the torture of Ammar al-Baluchi are in a 2008 report by the CIA’s inspector general, newly declassified as part of a court filing by his lawyers aimed at getting him an independent medical examination.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques
CIA black site detainee served as training prop to teach interrogators torture techniques
Newly declassified documents reveal Ammar al-Baluchi was repeatedly slammed against a wall while naked until all trainees received ‘certification’
A detainee at a secret CIA detention site in Afghanistan was used as a living prop to teach trainee interrogators, who lined up to take turns at knocking his head against a plywood wall, leaving him with brain damage, according to a US government report.
The details of the torture of Ammar al-Baluchi are in a 2008 report by the CIA’s inspector general, newly declassified as part of a court filing by his lawyers aimed at getting him an independent medical examination.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/mar/14/cia-black-site-detainee-training-prop-torture-techniques
What? What are you on about?
It is illegal for Eurostar, or anybody else, to help people enter the UK illegally. These Ukrainians will have permission to enter before they board the train. Those crossing the Channel don't. That's the answer to the question in the Instagram post.
Even the civil penalties are steep for truckers who get caught with somebody hiding in the back, or airlines who have passengers rejected at the border.
There are clear mechanisms in place with the UK Govt to help resettle and process Afghan refugees that come in by boat from Dover. There’s also a similar scheme set up for unaccompanied asylum seeking children (UASCs). There are processing units in Kent who work in conjunction with LAs to help resettle Afghan refugees. They’re also providing English lessons and legal representation to aid their asylum process. So it’s not illegal as we have a protocol in place.
My question to you is why don’t/didn’t Eurostar allow Afghan refugees free seats?
You gotta remember that we are exceptional.
I like Al Pacino.
I don't know Spoons. I think the era of ideologues is well past us and today people will look for any justification for their beliefs, even it doesn't align to their supposed core values.
You're not getting this. There might be processes in place to help them once they arrive but it is still illegal to bring them in. That's what Eurostar would be doing if they offered the seats.
Let me break this down as simple as possible for you.
The UK has systems and protocols in place to take Afghan and Ukraine refugees.
Eurostar has offered free seats to Ukrainian refugees looking to come to the UK.
My question, for the 3rd time, is - what’s stopping Eurostar doing that for Afghan refugees?
I'll make it as simple as I can for you.
When Ukrainian refugees board the train to London they are not illegal immigrants. They have been processed and accepted.
When Afghan refugees board the boats to Dover (or a train to London) they are illegal immigrants. They have not been processed and accepted.
Transporting illegal immigrants is, unsurprisingly, illegal. I can't explain it any more clearly than that.
They’re not illegal though. How are you not getting this? Why do you think these protocols and systems are in place to take Afghan refugees if they’re illegal?