Comment on Why The Government Has Infinite Money
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year agoThe subject of discussion is the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
If you are complaining that someone is discussing the Russian invasion of Ukraine without affirming that Russia invaded Ukraine, then you are holding a rather stupid objection.
TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Have you watched his video? If you have, the tone would be obvious as he never once blames ruzzia for anything, calls ukranians puppets under western control and calls the war a proxy war.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
JT is an American, with a platform largely of other Americans.
An American addressing other Americans about policies of the US and other NATO-aligned countries is legitimate and constructive political participation.
It may make you feel better for someone to complain about Putin and Russia, but it already happens constantly and contributes nothing.
I’m sure if JT somehow could change Putin’s mind, then he would do so, but his interest and opportunity are in discussing the American role.
Most Americans believe that the US is virtuous and exceptional, and that expansive military force is the best defense against evil people like Putin who are personally responsible for all the conflict in the world.
The narrative is childish and destructive, and criticizing it is completely necessary, even if in doing so someone fails to follow the same script you would have chosen based on your own priorities and concerns.
TheBlue22@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
That is not a problem
Problem is, JT lies, throughout the whole video.
There is almost not a single fact during his 5 minute rant, that wasnt ripped straight out of kremlin propaganda.
unfreeradical@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The speech is problematic, but so is your characterization of the position.
No denial was made that Russia invaded Ukraine, or that the invasion is unacceptable.
The speech is asking those in NATO-aligned states, particularly the United States, to reconsider the narrative fed to them by the media and government in their countries. The narrative largely projects the national ambitions of such countries as benevolent, and enemy countries and their rulers as evil, and emphasizes the moral and practiacl necessity or US-led militarism, to keep the world safe for everyone.
The speech is presenting an alternative narrative to challenge the one familiar to Americans.
Particularly, it is asking those in NATO-aligned countries to consider the issues more broadly, in terms of the harmful ramifications of NATO and NATO expansion. It asking us to consider whether NATO makes the world safer, or rather more dangerous. It is asking us to consider whether NATO supports the safety the of all, or the power of the few.
Much of the historic background and analysis supports the case that NATO is not helpful to most common people around the world, as much as it is a vehicle for preserving and expanding the wealth and power of a few oligarchs.
Ukraine is characterized as a puppet to the West in order to emphasize that the leaders in Ukraine cater to certain demands of countries such as the US, favoring their own positions of power, more than acting according the interests of the mass of the population.
If NATO were seeking contraction not expansion, then harmful people like Putin would still exist, but overall tension across the world may be reduced. The US would have less power as a nation, but such is not the same as the world being more dangerous for most of the global population.
Unfortunately, the ideology pedaled from within the US and similar countries would never concede that less military power for such countries could ever lead to greater overall safety for the world.