"…it consumed all one’s energies, coming on top of the work one really wanted to do. You can see how easy it was, then, not to think about fundamental things. One had no time."
I read this recently on Hacker News, in a discussion about "They Thought They Were Free" (1955) [1]
> I'm not sure it's all that new. During the Bush Jr. years America was not highly thought of.
From my Eastern European perspective, this is something fundamentally different. Sure, many people were critical of Bush Jr., but still, you could, with a bit of effort, construct some semi-reasonable narrative even around Iraq and Afghanistan. But Trump? That feels like an entirely different league.
I grew up in Czechoslovakia, still occupied by Russians at the time. Seeing Trump clap at Putin's landing, seeing US soldiers on their knees rolling red carpet for Putin... this broke something in me. I honestly almost threw up. And that meeting with Zelenskyj in the White House, that will stay with me until I die.
I spent some time in the US when I was at college, and I will always cherish those memories - these were the best seven months of my life. Coincidentally, I was in the US during the Bush Jr. presidency. And despite my dislike for him, I was always defending the US. Somewhat irrationally, I was always trying to justify even the questionable things. But now, that's gone and buried. As far as I am concerned, the US I loved no longer exists. Now it is another Russia-like hostile country that we need to protect ourselves from.
And the personal experience you mention - sure, most people can separate citizens from their state. I can have a civil discussion with a Russian. I was always friendly to my Russian colleagues, immigrants who now live here. But that does not mean I am not hoping with all my heart that their state goes to hell.
> Simple question: in 1989 the Berlin Wall fell and there was peaceful “annexation” of GDR into FRG, in which West Germany effectively took over, with its constitution taking into effect in new federal states, the GDR assets being taken over by western economic structures etc. Was it imperial by its nature?
> From Russian perspective it’s kind of the same (except the war part of course). Same language spoken, shared history etc. [...]
This is a truly bizarre piece of mental gymnastics. You list superficial similarities and casually gloss over the only thing that is substantial as if it were some inconsequential detail. By your "logic", rape is indistinguishable from making love. The same organs involved, the same movements (except the consent part, of course).
What's interesting to me is that this is an educated russian living in Berlin. So full access to all of the news, CTO of a company, so somewhat influential, not directly influenced by things happening inside russia and yet, all of the idiocy that you see on display with russians that are interviewed inside of russia, including copium, irrational reasoning and russian talking points interspersed with confused personal takes.
It is fascinating in a pathological way, but it also makes me wonder to what degree there is a rational pathway out of this. If this is the best then the people inside the russian propaganda machine don't stand a chance. Fortunately I know some russians outside of russia that have their eyes wide open but they too are scared of the long arm of putin.
This discussion leans against sanctions, and I feel a bit uneasy about this. There are some good arguments, but still... can I try to offer a different point of view?
I grew up in a country occupied by Russians. I really feel for the Ukrainians. Currently, there seems to be a social contract between Putin and middle-class Russians from Moscow and St. Petersburg - they will let him bomb Ukrainian civilians, as long as he shields them from getting really hurt by that war. They can continue living pretty comfortably, as long as they go along with it. To me, this just feels wrong. Yes, it is hard to change anything in a dictatorship. I know that from personal experience. But I believe that ultimately, citizens have the responsibility for what their country is doing. And if what their country is doing is destroying another country, I am OK with making them feel a bit of heat.
I don't know that much about Iran, but the part I know is that they indeed make drones that pound Ukrainians, including their schools and hospitals. Do I feel certain sympathy for Iranian commoners, who might not make those drones voluntarily? Sure. If I were in their place, I would probably not dare to resist, and I would make those drones. But I feel more sympathy with Ukrainians. And if anything could be done to make it harder for Iranians to make those drones, we should try it. Even if it's unlikely to succeed. Even if it makes the lives of innocent ordinary citizens harder. I hope that if I were an Iranian, I would at least understand that.
Let's say some random Russian in Moscow decides that they are not okay with it. What would you have them do, exactly? It's not even that the government is oppressive and will crack down, but an even bigger problem is that this oppressive government genuinely does have majority support of the population (as you note yourself!) - so what can they do even? And if the answer really is nothing, then how can they be responsible?
Your second argument - that this is acceptable collateral damage - makes more sense, but it requires demonstrating that there is some connection between the specific measures and "making it harder".
> so what can they do even? And if the answer really is nothing, then how can they be responsible?
I think I need to clarify what I mean by "responsibility". Many people confuse "you are responsible" with "you did this" or "it is your fault", but this is not exactly true. Let's say I am an alcoholic. I believe alcoholism is an affliction (some people might not agree with that, but that's another discussion - let's ignore that for now and assume it is an affliction). Therefore, I believe it is not my fault that I am an alcoholic - It was just bad luck that I was born that way. Yet, it is my responsibility to control my alcoholism. If I hurt someone while under the influence, I have to bear the consequences. Some might argue it is not entirely fair, and I would agree. But in my view, it is the closest we can get to fair. I have a better chance of controlling my alcoholism than some random person whose kids I might have killed while driving under the influence.
Alcoholism is an extreme example, but if you think about it for a while, being responsible for something that is not your fault is common. I see Russians responsible in the same way. Citizens of a state share collective responsibility for what their state is doing. And the fact that an individual might not be able to do anything about it does not change that.
> Your second argument - that this is acceptable collateral damage - makes more sense, but it requires demonstrating that there is some connection between the specific measures and "making it harder".
Why? This is not a court of law, where you have to prove guilt to inflict punishment. Sanctions are not a punishment (which is also why I do not like arguments about collective punishment used in this discussion and elsewhere). They are an attempt to pressure a state to stop causing harm. And if that attempt is based on somewhat reasonable assumptions (which, in the case of Russia and Iran, I think it is), I am fine with it.
And let's not forget it is a relatively peaceful attempt. Nazi Germany was "persuaded" by literally destroying them to the point of unconditional capitulation. And many people who had nothing to do with Hitler died. In an ideal world, they would not have, because it was not their fault and they could not do anything, but the problem is that we only have very crude ways of dissuading states from causing harm.
Your whole post is war propaganda to justify how "the enemy" needs to be blocked and attacked.
Analyze who have perpetrated most invasions ("military operations" if you like euphemisms) in the last 40 years and you'll be surprised who you'd need to "block" given your logic.
Of course, you won't block yourself because it's convenient to be a jingoist when it doesn't affect you.
> Analyze who have perpetrated most invasions ("military operations" if you like euphemisms) in the last 40 years and you'll be surprised who you'd need to "block" given your logic.
I have. It was Russia. They are indeed blocked and I am not surprised.
> Of course, you won't block yourself because it's convenient to be a jingoist when it doesn't affect you.
No, I won't block myself because my little country has not invaded anyone. If you are assuming I am an American, I am not.
Thermal paper used for receipts is coated with endocrine disruptors. Touching them every day multiple times can decrease your testosterone levels. At least Rhonda Patrick says so: https://m.youtube.com/shorts/isteK4uQhQA
There was a study in Korea that showed it transfers into the body for folks like cashiers who handle them all day (gloves help prevent transfer). Besides lowering testosterone in men, these endocrine disruptors can have lots of other negative side effects.
> In that context, everything starts to make sense.
In that context, a lot of it does not make sense. Why the threats about annexing Canada or Greenland? Why the tariffs and extremely hostile rhetoric towards all allies? If you are preparing for a war, the stupidest thing you could do is to alienate your allies and push them toward your adversary. China is already approaching the EU, and I am sure they are negotiating with other key players too. China even agreed on a joint response to the tariffs with Japan and South Korea. Let that sink in - China, together with Japan and South Korea!
This is what despair looks like. I am not judging - I am from Eastern Europe, and I grew up in a country still occupied by Russians. Knowing that no matter what good I do, my life might be destroyed by Russia makes me feel all kinds of feelings too. It's hard to find solace, but one thing that helps me is that there is always a choice. They can destroy my life, but it is up to me whether I choose not to be like them. We all die sooner or later, but if I spend my life on the right side of the eternal fight between good and evil, I still win.
I know I am not original, and I am probably not explaining it well, but it gives me a bit of tranquility. I hope it will help you too.
> Germany will absolutely not have its own nuclear weapons in 10 years (there are already US nukes stationed in Germany, so foreign ones aren't a change in status quo).
Given the regime change in the US, those would be useless if the goal is to deter Russia, wouldn't they?
> Mark my words, in ten years, at least three out of Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Canada will have nuclear weapons.
My bet would be on Poland, Japan, and South Korea.
And why is almost no one mentioning Taiwan in these discussions? I am probably missing something, but Taiwan would seem like the most likely candidate, assuming they do not want to be swallowed by China.
I read this recently on Hacker News, in a discussion about "They Thought They Were Free" (1955) [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45321663