Quote Originally Posted by andy6025 View Post
Driller, I think it would be better to discuss the ideas and positions that are put forward rather than try to dig up supposed ‘dirt’ on the people that are talking. Regardless of the presenters, such as the red herrings like their opinion on Stalin or references to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the issues she talks about still remain; Germany (not to mention the rest of Europe) is in a very significant quandary without Russian energy. Even if they drop any pretensions of a consistent moral position and continue trade with ‘friendly countries’ that don’t have impeccable geopolitical records themselves, Germany is rapidly deindustrializing. Meanwhile, as Macron points out, America is excruciatingly overcharging Europe for LNG - “some friend!” Perhaps they took a page out of Victoria “Fu** the Europeans” Nuland’s book.

For anyone interested, here’s the documentary produced by Oliver Stone about Maidan called Ukraine on Fire. Not surprisingly YouTube tries to make it appear unavailable to some viewers by putting up a ‘this is offensive’ banner, but I get around it by refreshing it, then it plays.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pKcmNG...ctr=1667824824

I’m looking forward to hearing about the skeletons in Oliver Stone’s closet.

But in all seriousness, this conflict will only end when the two sides talk to each other about the issues of substance and reach an agreement that is suitable to both. I hope that happens sooner rather than later.

Best,

Andy

ps. The YouTube channel that hosted the interview with Sarah Wagenknecht doesn’t belong to me, nor do I have any affiliation with it. Regardless, and as I said, her ideas ought to be considered on merit.
Well here's a point I'm happy to debate with you.

I actually agree with you that people's views should be debated on merit regardless of any dirt that can be dug up on them, but that's not what I'm doing here.

I'm not saying those people used the N word, or did something questionable in their personal lives, therefore their views are null and void. I'm just giving full disclosure about where their ideological/geopolitical sympathies lie, which is relevant in this conversation.

The German politician grew up in one of the most oppressive regimes that has ever existed, and didn't rebel against it, or even just keep her head down, but joined it. She praised Stalinism. Not socialism, not communism, not Leninism, but Stalin - the guy who created one of the most terrifying totalitarian regimes in human history.

The guy whose YouTube channel she was on dedicates his channel to anti-Western and pro Chinese propaganda (according to him the Tianamen Square massacre is a Western invention and all the Uighurs in re-education camps are Al Qaeda)

As I wrote before, the two guys who made the film about Donbas work for Russia Today, and one of them left the US to join Putin's political party.

Is it fair and relevant to point out that all of them seem to be strongly anti-Western, and seem to feel a strong affinity to authoritarian regimes, three of them to Russia in particular?

I think it is.

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact needs to be mentioned because I'm tired of hearing (normally from the types of people mentioned above) that Russia is a glorious bastion of anti-facism. It isn't. They were quite happy for Nazi Germany to do Nazi Germany things if it meant more territory for them. Even when Hitler double crossed them and they decided to fight him instead of splitting the spoils with him, they still needed American weapons to do it.

Funny you should mention Oliver Stone. I think his films are great, but having watched his appearance on the Lex Friedman podcast recently I would also group him with the people above.

Talking to people is great, and listening to other points of view is great, and I genuinely mean that, but by the same token if you think 2+2 = 4, but someone else swears it's 5, it doesn't mean that you should split the difference and say 2+2 equals four and a half.