I just feel extremely sad about the mass quantity of events like this happening right now because they are all aggregate to huge negative effects but the average person knows nothing of it. It feels so unfixable.
The ties between the fossil fuel industry and the far right are clear. Apathy, indifference, inertia, they are all products of propaganda and updated Cambridge Analytica methods.
Fossil fuel interests will stop at nothing to further their greed.
The fossil fuel industry has ties to anyone who will promote their business.
> Fossil fuel interests will stop at nothing to further their greed.
Exactly. Nothing. If tomorrow the left advances their interest be sure that the fossil fuel industry will just as quickly attach to them.
What's not happening? I think you are confusing what "whataboutism" is? "Whatabout" the exact same fossil fuel industry OP referenced? I corrected a misconception that OP had, and I guess so do you: that the oil industry cares about political affiliation. To you this probably sounded like a support of the right, and whatabouting the left. Least effort interpretation meets trigger happiness.
The oil industry has monetary affiliations and intrinsically sees no political color or affiliation except in the interest of making that money. The other way around, the US right has a strong preference for the oil industry, while the left has less. But I was clear that I'm looking at it from the industry's perspective: the oil industry doesn't care about right or left. They will without a doubt allow any tide to lift their boat without any moral argument. This distinction is important. Plenty of places in the world where the oil industry is affiliated to the center or left.
Again, there's nothing intrinsically "right wing" about the oil industry, there something strongly "oil leaning" in the US right-wing.
An example that captures this a bit is Musk publicly supporting and having ties to the democrat administration for years when it benefited him and the EV/green agenda. He had no qualms shifting to supporting the republicans when he thought this will benefit him even more despite the right being anti-green. You can bet that he'd try to switch back if the tides turn again although this time it's hard to come back from what he did.
Source: worked in the oil industry for years.
I would call it maybe 'relativizing'. Like making everything so relative that anything could happen in theory while taking away attention from the fact (hence similarity with whataboutism) that it just (or mostly) happens in one specific case. So Oil industry would align with 'Left' if 'Left' aligned with Oil industry, but that is not relevant take since it is not happening.
And using Musk is not example of this case because he is not part of oil industry.
That industries shift affiliation if it brings them money is not "relative", it's just something they show again and again, some more than others. I don't care about US politics right/left but as someone who worked in the oil industry I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money. Many industries do this, much of the left leaning tech sector collectively kissed the boot of the Trump administration, shoveled money his way, and clapped on order at his inauguration. It probably wasn't ideological but pragmatic.
> And using Musk is not example of this case because he is not part of oil industry.
And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money. The poster child of the traditionally left EV/green industry slinking away to the famously non-green right. How many examples do you need? Worldwide the oil industry doesn't show a particular preference to the right, it does without exception show preference to the side making them more money.
It's more because people especially in the US are so partisan and self-centered right now that anything that even remotely sounds like it doesn't fully match their views leads to brain shutdown and autopilot rage mode.
That's why it takes 3 very clear explanations for you to understand but still not quite (understanding takes effort and brainpower, but anyone can mash the trigger for free). That's why you can start by saying "you are right" and end with "but nobody cares because the 'publicans/libs". And that's why things are going the way they are over there.
The fact you had to stoop to personal attacks tells me you are not that confident in your position. You can downvote with your alt accounts but that doesn’t change the facts here.
Which in this case is just 'right-wing' side. I get that they would shift to other side if it fits but in reality there is no other.
> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.
He may be example of "of changing affiliation" for money - even if this is also arguable - but still not relevant to topic of that fossil industry goes hand in hand with right-wing agenda.
Why do you want to move attention from the relation between right-wing politics and fossil industry by creating hypothetical scenarios that are not happening and by moving the goalpost of the topic with examples that are tangential at best?
Musk has never changed affiliations.
You can look at his political contributions. Like most of the ultra-wealthy, he does donate to both political parties. But he has never donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans.
In fact, in the average year, for the last 16 years (I went back as far as I have lived in the US) he's donated, eleven times more to the Republican party.
Musk has been libertarian at best, not liberal. And even that is sketchy. It's fine for him as CEO to go on podcasts and smoke weed and have "the highest ability to process ketamine on the planet", but work for Tesla or any of his companies and you'd best piss clean, or you're out.
If there's some proposed legislation that would make things notably better for 50 million people, but would cost an insurance company 100 million dollars, then that insurance company can spend any amount less than 100 million fighting the bill and still come out ahead. Even 10 million can buy a lot of lobbyists, and almost guarantee torpedoing the bill.
Meanwhile the 50 million people are working 80 hours/wk across three jobs just to put food on the table, are stressed about how to pay rent, and don't have the personal cell phone number of their congressperson even if they had the time and energy to call them.
Trump can increase inequality and make wealthy people wealthier, but says he's doing good for poor people. If things get better, it's because of him. If things get worse, it's because of someone else.
Ergo, poor people support him.
Your choices are the party of billionaires, or the party of billionaires except we don't hate gay people quite as much.
When such events are clearly ongoing, people roll their eyes and say you're overreacting. Then when it all ends and consequences happen, people say now is the time for healing, nobody could've foreseen this, and it's too bad nothing could've been done.
It's the same as being sober and trapped in a car with a drunk driver and their drunk friends. To them, it's fine. They're comfortable with what they're doing. You're the one being annoying for complaining. But their every action is not only endangering you and themselves, but it's endangering people on the perimeters who don't even know about the crisis that's happening within that 2 ton box. Some can see the swerving from far away, but there's nothing they can do. The only hope is the passenger trying to reason with an angry drunk to pull over, but it'll never happen. They'll just get more pissed off and drive more erratically to mess with you and to get some laughs from their friends. So it's a struggle between closing your eyes and hoping it's over soon, or trying to fight back and hope you can stop them. But neither option is easy and both shift the responsibility to someone other than the ones causing the chaos.
Do you still get threatening letters with fines at home when you download a pirated movie?
For a sense of scale (only scale, money is definitely not the most important criteria), the EU currently spends twice as much on their military as Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest...
So if (when) American support disappears, I expect Russia to continue to not go anywhere fast while wasting a lot of lives in the process. I also expect this to surprise Putin, as he thinks Russia is a Great Power and therefore can only be stalling if Ukraine is supported by another Great Power and doesn't recognise that (1) Russia isn't, and (2) the EU kinda is, sort of, when it feels like acting with unity rather than as 27 different nations.
The sole reason Russia invaded Ukraine was that it was flirting too much with NATO.
Putin might be a lunatic, but he is not stupid.
The EU is closer to being one than Russia is today, and even then the EU is only kinda a bit of one in some measures but not all.
When I search for list of superpowers, I get superheroes — obviously nobody on Marvel or DC is going to be listed as having "Russia" as their superpower, but this does illustrate what it is that search engines do these days, and it's not objective truth.
Do you have a good authoritative source that lists the superpower countries that does not include Russia?
Sure, but also in writing this reply, "cia superpower list" to see if they had anything "authoritative" got me CIA's paranormal research: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp96-00792r000...
> Do you have a good authoritative source that lists the superpower countries that does not include Russia?
In most cases, the statement I see is that the USA is "the", singular, superpower. So none of my sources are lists.
What counts as a "good authoritative source", for you? And when?
Samuel P. Huntington was highly rated in his day, but "The Lonely Superpower" was 1999: https://web.archive.org/web/20060427150630/http://www-stage....
RAND I think still are, and this was 2019, "Russia Is a Rogue, Not a Peer; China Is a Peer, Not a Rogue": https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE310.html
Is nationalinterest.org "authoritative"? "What Happens When America Is No Longer the Undisputed Super Power?", 2020: https://nationalinterest.org/feature/what-happens-when-ameri...
I could link to Wikipedia, which says of Russia "potential" superpower (along with the EU, China, and India), not currently an extant superpower. But that's not what I'd call "authoritative".
And this is the point where I got that link to the CIA's paranormal research. The CIA's World Factbook doesn't even describe the USA as a "superpower", at least not at the time of writing: https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/united-stat...
If you can’t find an authoritative source of who is a superpower then how can you confidently claim who isn’t?
Finland is a member.
Lithuania is a member.
The sad reality is that your logic is just a twisted pretzel to support the position you wish to take which is you support Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.
The US military industrial complex is a huge beast that needs an enemy to exist. There is so much money in the game.
The USA did not make Russia attack Ukraine.
Was it the one where the USA, along with the UK and Russia, all jointly signed an agreement to respect Ukraine's (and several other post-USSR nations') independence and sovereignty in their existing borders (as of 5 December 1994), including an obligation to seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used", so that Ukraine would give up the nuclear weapons it had accidentally inherited from the USSR?
Put it another way: given your stance on the US mil-ind complex, do you think this war would stop if the USA completely vanished from the international scene?
Because the EU is right next door and also doesn't want Russia thinking it can do stuff like this.
He even made a speech at the Sportpalast in Berlin in which he stated that the Sudetenland was "the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe". So all's fine, and we don't have to worry about Germany.
After Reginald Drax's mission to Moscow failed, the Soviet Union ended up signing its famous non-aggression pact.
Italy was allied, Spain was neutral/aligned. Turkiye was neutral.
Poland could only count on UK and France[0].
Compare to now, where the NATO military bloc is massive. No one would dare risking a military confrontation in these circumstances.
If anything, when there are any tensions between two non-NATO countries, it makes it more urgent for one to oppose the other joining NATO (attacking before they'd join NATO would stave off them joining, attacking after they'd join NATO would lead to an unwinnable fight).
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance
So I wanted to show that people have also used cheap excuses like this in the past, and that we shouldn't give Russian propaganda the benefit of the doubt.
Of course there weren't any atrocities commited against the Sudetendeutsche population, I just assumed everyone knew that, but that's due to my German-centric view of history.
I should have expected this, as sarcasm doesn't translate well over text, especially if people don't share the same cultural background.
> The sole reason Russia invaded Ukraine was that it was flirting too much with NATO.
Which was only a problem for Putin because Putin's world view is that Great Powers (such as Russia, in his mind) should have a sphere of influence, whereas most everyone else thinks Ukraine is a sovereign nation who has the right to decide for itself which treaties it does or doesn't belong to.
Even then, more like begging than flirting; the invasion made it much more likely. Likewise EU membership.
The claim that Russia has a right to dictate the alliances of other countries simply because they border it is ludicrous and violates international law.
(Simo Häyhä had something to say about last time Russia invaded Finland)
The list of US backed military coups in the Americas does not fit on an A4 page with a font size small enough to be unreadable.
I don't understand, are you trying to make Russia sound like an incel? It's not a flattering look.
But no, he went for a 'quick' victory instead, and ended up bogged in a much higher intensity war, made the Russian military a laughing stock, and kicked the EU/Nato bees nest so hard that another 2 countries immediately joined NATO.
1: https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-grand-plan-meet-nato-t...
There is no such thing. Even if Ukraine cannot recapture all of the lost territory, it's Russia who has already lost. That a country four times the population, ten times as rich has incurred a million casualties, switched to a war economy, has to throw tens of thousand of North Koreans into a war in Europe, merely to creep forward by a few meters has to be the largest humiliation to an alleged "great power" in a century.
All of this while Europe has not even remilitarized, with Ukraine becoming a major producer of military technology in its own right, the country is now largely self sufficient in terms of its drone output among other things, is one of the strongest signs of resilience of this continent.
How do you picture this? People in Paris disappear with a flash of light and baguettes falling on the ground? Or is ot more like the earth shakes and it all goes under the water? Or maybe something like Europeans collectively decide to do whatever Putin tells them? Or maybe suddenly adopt American and Russian way of life, like Italians burn their Fiat 500's and order Ford F-150's, throw away their wines and start brewing votka? Or maybe turn against each other and break down their functioning trade and cultural relations and just buy Russian and American stuff instead and pay with what?
BTW the blaming immigrants and tearing down the social state doesn't work for long because you have finite number of immigrants and social services. If you actually get rid of those and things don't improve people start to notice. A common strategy is to keep blaming those when not doing anything about it or even increase it but the problem with that is, people get tired and actually change you with someone who actually will do something about it and you end up doing something. This something can be to fix the issues and remove the pressure or remove the immigrants and the social sistem and you get a very strong counter action and flushes away those who did it. However way it goes it's not an end or beginning of anything as EU isn't an empire like the US, just bunch of sovereign states in coordination.
Meanwhile, support rate for EU and Eurozone is highest ever among EU member states and Europe as a whole. If anything, people are annoyed that EU struggles to be decisive as Europeans want more EU, not less. This new situation even paved the way for collaboration previously thought to be far fetched dream.
I don't know how all this will unfold but if tonight Europe ends as we know it, tomorrow we will have European federation and the discussions won't be about the petty local issues but thinks like EU army etc. as all Europeans are very annoyed by Russia, USA and the current state of affairs in Europe.
Check the stats, Europeans don't buy into the agenda pushed by the American libertarians. People want bigger stronger EU to take over where USA abandoned.
Here's an idea... how about a "United States of Europe"... could even have an "electoral college" where Europeans come together to elect a decisive "President" type leader... ;-)
Europe doesn't have coherent interests across the board but every country acts purely in its own interest even if it's at the expense of the other member states. EU is an org that replaced the battlefield so Europeans don't have another world war with each other but instead backstab themselves tough politics in the EU parlaiment.
See the illegal immigration issue that still hasn't been solved since 2015 and instead of solving it, they just ban anti-illegal-immigration right wing candidates or parties from being allowed to take part in elections and pretend the issue went away.
>Imagine if it was 1942 and Britain was still shipping millions of dollars of weapons components into Germany via Sweden or Switzerland?
1) Britain was at war directly with Germany in 1942, but Germany is not fighting Russia, Ukraine is, as the proxy, so German corporations can afford to profit form this war as the government looks away. Big difference. There's Realpolitik and then there's idealistic fantasy.
2) Britain could afford to declare war on Germany because Germany didn't have nukes, while now Russia has nukes and Germany doesn't. Even "better", Germany made its economy dependent on Russian gas. Britain didn't have its economy dependent on resources imported from Germany. Huge differences that make such comparisons not even in the same ballpark.
> Europe will increasingly be ran by right-wing autocrats shredding the social state and blaming immigrants.
This does not:
> Ukraine losing the war will be the end of Europe
Both the question of losing (the war is somewhat stalemated, and Europe itself is rearming .. although still not breaking dependency on Russian gas!) and the idea that this will somehow "end Europe". If anything, Brexit pretty much demolished similar movements across the EU. The EU's squishyness is mistaken for weakness by too many people who are fans of "muscular" rhetoric.
The guidelines ask us to avoid flamebait. Please make an effort to observe all the guidelines in future.
I hope people recognize that their tax dollars aren't the only dollars that can evoke change; we don't have to wait our turn to start fixing things.
Black people are not slaves anymore, women can vote, gays can marry, weed is mostly legal, etc. It takes longer than anyone wants it to, but we always get upgrades that stick in the progress phases of the cycle.
This time the steps backwards are bigger than usual, so in 3 years there will be a lot more will to take even bigger steps forwards and progressives need to be ready to move fast when it is their turn again.
Mamdani is a preview.