Conservative or liberal (politics)

[Hensmon]

Putin doesn't want US military and their nuclear weapon sites at its border. US doesn't want Russia's (or China's) military at their border. Both are reasonable security expectations and should be respected. Historically that was always the agreement. If Trump wants to restore that reality, I see that as the pragmatic, fair, and quickest path to ending this ridiculous loss of life. It's not ass-kissing.

We don't have to like Putin in any of this, but talking and working together with men like him is what's needed. It's complicated anyway. We saw what happened when we removed Saddam, things got 1000x times worse. The antagonistic approach should always be the last resort. What Trump is doing is right.

 

[Jetflag]

I absolutely love the responds from the EU bureaucrats.

Whiny touting toddler screeching that "they're being left out" out of a preliminary meeting in Riyad--> Proceed to not invite the rest of the 27 fucking EU member states to their preliminary meeting.

look at them: do these people ever meet anyone but themselves?

Rutte: picked, not elected as NATO chief
Starmer: 0 Credibility, approval rating 23%
Macron: No majority.
Scholz: Out next week, Stazi's his own people for "wrong think" on the internet.
Schoof: Never elected in the first place,
Costa: No idea what he's doing there, and neither does he by the looks of it.
Von der Leyen: Never elected, made billion-deals via SMS and wants to peak in my whatsapp posts.....

All bemoaning how "their" democracy is allegedly under threat by Trump & Musk posting on X, whilst wasting millions of euro's to activist & lobby groups of their choosing... Tax money i might add. Sickening bunch of Hypocrites.

fuck outta here. The only democratic element they have is a democratic deficit, which they haven't fixed in 30 years. Its an elitist unelected Kleptocracy, not a Democracy, and they absolutely deserved the ass ripping Vance gave them in Munich.

you know, I used to be an optimistic skeptic about this whole EU project, If it worked for the benelux then why not the rest ey? but after the absolute poppycockfuckery i've seen over the last couple of decades? i'm over the fence by now.... Fuck the EU. I hope it either dissolves or we can Nexit the hell out of there.

come what may.

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

Ukraine is a sovereign country, not some bargaining chip for global powers to trade around based on Russia’s “security concerns.” Ukraine has the right to decide its own future, just like any other country. And they are being excluded b/c USA foreign policy is a clusterfuck, following whatever Trump blurts out in public to everyone's surprise. Talking to Putin is easy and they do it b/c they have no issue talking to dictators without any preconditions. Trump loves the dictators. He wants to be one, and he's working on making that happen.

Also, NATO wasn’t expanding because it wanted to poke Russia in the eye. Countries asked to join because they were afraid of exactly what Russia ended up doing in Ukraine. The idea that “historically this was always the agreement” is just false. No treaty ever promised Russia a veto on NATO expansion. And even if NATO had stayed put, does anyone actually think Putin wouldn’t have gone after Ukraine anyway? The guy literally said Ukraine isn’t a real country. This isn’t about defense, it’s about empire. Giving him post-2014 borders now just proves invasions work. Belarus next? Why not? And what is the outcome after this? What’s the actual plan that all parties can get behind? Give Russia part of Ukraine, call it a day, and hope they don’t come back for more? That’s the same thinking that let Hitler get away with the Sudetenland. Peace deals only work if the people being invaded actually want the deal, and surprise - Ukraine doesn’t want to hand over its land.

Of course talking is better than war, but not if the talking is just rolling over and pretending Ukraine’s interests don’t exist. The U.S. didn’t remove Saddam and create chaos in Iraq by doing nothing, it did that by invading. Nobody’s talking about invading Russia. But letting Putin dictate terms isn’t some genius foreign policy move. It’s just rewarding aggression. And we validate Putin by inviting him to the Whitehouse, talking without preconditions, conceding 2014 borders and denying Ukraine a path to NATO membership in a public interview (which obviously was not something key parties were aware of or had agreed to). All this at a time when sanctions are working, and Russia is historically weak. This sends a clear message to other dictators. Such a reversal of policy is historically bonkers and most our our gov't back home doesn't support this.

And still, everyone on Trump's side seems to assume he has honorable well thought-out motives, following the best foreign policy ideals of your favorite Mearsheimer. What if Trump just doesn't give three fucks about Ukraine? What if Putin actually has leverage on Trump and/or his family? Given his previous actions in Ukraine, it's insane to think his motives here are clear. I'd feel more comfortable with this process if people didn't have amnesia about who Trump is and his past with Ukraine and his and his families history with Russia. Has everyone forgotten Manafort? Also, my personal fav: Eric Trump in 2014: ‘We have all the funding we need out of Russia’.

 

[Archon]

i continue to be amazed at US capitulation on the world stage. What a turn of policy we have here. Sad for the destruction of long standing partnerships and the damage that will result. Y’all can reason away at why licking weak-ass-Putins balls is the right move for Trump at a time when Russia has never been weaker, while not considering the true motives of the players. It’s never been a better time to be an authoritarian and the club is looking sexier by the day. And the Ukraine ‘peace talks’ don’t include the core players. Fuck this farce.

At the risk of being characterized as being in favour of someone licking someone else's balls...

It's a bit more complicated than that, isn't it?

I believe he's just strong-arming all sides to come to the table and find common ground as quickly as possible. You hear news on another set of (more pinpointed and harder) sanctions on Russia, EU military, NATO peacekeeping troops in Ukraine, Ukraine joining NATO, territorial losses for Ukraine, precious metals, leaving EU/Ukraine outside of any peace deal...

I would assume the context has shifted totally towards making sure everyone comes to the bargaining table, OR ELSE they risk being hit with something from the paragraph above. For Europe especially, the context shift from having to prepare for war because the other side is pure evil, to actively working on being included in peace talks, is apparent. Carrot and stick.

What I got from today's talks is that US and Russia are in agreement on starting working together to end the war. The diplomatic ties are being restored. That's it. From what I read, Ukraine and EU will indeed participate in these talks.

And what it looks like to me is, a lot of the world is involved already. Ukraine and Russia for sure, but also NATO and Europe, China, North Korea, Iran... It would take ages to get the peace talk wheels rolling if not for an utter maniac with a big stick and a whole lotta attitude.

---

Furthermore, we can all agree that this war should end, right? Lots of lives lost, hundreds of billions on dollars in, more countries already joining or on the brink of joining... And for quite some time not much territorial gains on either side.

Is it that bad that the process is starting, at least? Or should this war of attrition come to a point where one side either loses completely or becomes desperate enough to make desperate moves?

---

I also wouldn't yet speculate on the contents of the treaty just yet. Let's wait and see.

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

I also wouldn't yet speculate on the contents of the treaty just yet. Let's wait and see.

I think that's the key - we do need to wait and see, like all things with this admin. The talk is often insane and poorly thought out, and the actions are often milder/different. I just find it frustrating that many here and elsewhere treat the utter maniac with a big stick as a rational actor and assume good intentions. See my other comment made when not drunk lol.

 

[Archon]

If I can expand furthermore, this makes sense a bit. China is seen as the main and biggest rival.

So I think the US is coming back to the doctrines of Kissinger et al, where Russia shouldn't be pushed into China's arms - they can't risk them forming a powerful partnership. So making peace while also slightly taking into account Russia's wishes, (re)opening up the economy for mutual benefit, decreasing sanctions etc. might make it not as dependent on China for economy/sensitive technology/natural resources/etc.

Here's also how this (still) benefits the US:

- Russia has been exhausted enough by the war to not pose a larger threat post peace-treaty
- Ukraine has been completely separated from Russia's sphere of influence
- Ukraine will stop using Russian arms and buy everything from the West (most certainly US), which benefits the US war industry
- Ukraine might give up some natural resources/precious metals to the US, or at least take them away from China's corporations
- EU might contribute towards stability and security, which frees up the US/NATO to focus on AUKUS and their operations in the Indo-Pacific

 

[Jetflag]

Ukraine has been completely separated from Russia's sphere of influence

To be a bit more precise:

The parts of Ukraine that have not been annexed/conquered by Russia are completely seperated from Russia's sphere of influence by now, for now.

People seem to forget that the whole Russia-Ukraine conflict didn't start with Putin ad-random invading in 2022. There actually was a large pro Russian part of the populus allocated in the donbass/Luhansk provinces after maidan where an 8 year seperatist rebellion against Kiev post-Yanukovych took place, after said president had been removed from office by the Rada without proper constitutional protocol. There's a strong legal case to be made that Ukraine at that point was a defacto failed state, even though i'm personally not of that opinion.

Its does, leftway or right, very much call in to question this whole notion that " Ukraine as a whole (!) "just" wanted to join the west" Its a bit more complex then that when half of your country directly start a militairy rebellion following what they see as, and what is actually quite demonstrably, a defacto coup 'd etat.

 

[Archon]

To be a bit more precise:

The parts of Ukraine that have not been annexed/conquered by Russia are completely seperated from Russia's sphere of influence by now, for now.

People seem to forget that the whole Russia-Ukraine conflict didn't start with Putin ad-random invading in 2022. There actually was a large pro Russian part of the populus allocated in the donbass/Luhansk provinces after maidan where an 8 year seperatist rebellion against Kiev post-Yanukovych took place, after said president had been removed from office by the Rada without proper constitutional protocol. There's a strong legal case to be made that Ukraine at that point was a defacto failed state, even though i'm personally not of that opinion.

Its does, leftway or right, very much call in to question this whole notion that " Ukraine as a whole (!) "just" wanted to join the west" Its a bit more complex then that when half of your country directly start a militairy rebellion following what they see as, and what is actually quite demonstrably, a defacto coup 'd etat.

Yes, that's more or less what I wanted to say. I wasn't precise enough. Thanks!

 

[Hensmon]

Ukraine is a sovereign country, not some bargaining chip for global powers to trade around based on Russia’s “security concerns.” Ukraine has the right to decide its own future, just like any other country.

Not at the expense of another countries security. Global relationships and historical context matters immensely. Russia has been invaded 4 times through Ukraine and were decimated. Surely you can understand their mindset, and the concerns and paranoia they might have. US has never been invaded, and look at the depths they go to for security. The US has invaded and bombed its way through the last 70 years of earths history. The government is controlled by neo-conservative war criminals who act outside of the rule and oversight of congress. They have shown hostility and antagonism to Russia for decades. They overthrow the government of Ukraine in 2014 via an engineered coup (involving a massacre).

Is Russia justified in its security concerns, given the context?

Would the US allow this to happen with Russia and Mexico? What would their response be if so?

 

[Jetflag]

Would the US allow this to happen with Russia and Cuba?

(Fixed that for you)

 

[Jetflag]

The bannon gesture hits home differently with me then the one by musk, Cortez or Obama for that matter.

Where the latter two were just waving and musk was just ackwardly sperging uncontrollable emotions, Bannon seems to do it deliberately, purposely. Out of spite.

 

[dmgtz96]

The bannon gesture hits home differently with me then the one by musk, Cortez or Obama for that matter.

Where the latter two were just waving and musk was just ackwardly sperging uncontrollable emotions, Bannon seems to do it deliberately, purposely. Out of spite.

Steve Bannon is a genuine far right psycho who wants to spread his politics to the rest of the world. He knows he's going to piss off the left and, in their outrage, have them spread his message for him

 

[Jetflag]

He knows he's going to piss off the left

Yeah you’ve hit the nail on the head there.. it’s him showing them, his detractors “me no frego, you have no social or moral power over me anymore”

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

Yeah you’ve hit the nail on the head there.. it’s him showing them, his detractors “me no frego, you have no social or moral power over me anymore”

One of the other CPAC speakers did the hand over heart bit too beforehand, kinda hard to dispute that one. Whether or not they are actual NAZIs, or just signaling to their alt-right brethren with the side benefit of pissing off the left, it’s despicable. Fuck these sick losers.

 

[Jetflag]

One of the other CPAC speakers did the hand over heart bit too beforehand, kinda hard to dispute that one. Whether or not they are actual NAZIs, or just signaling to their alt-right brethren with the side benefit of pissing off the left, it’s despicable. Fuck these sick losers.

For what it’s worth, most people somewhere in the right political spectrum, including me ( half of who’s extended family got exterminated by the Nazi’s) find the behaviour repulsive.

That being said, circles within the left aren’t aiding the defense of the (un)ethical absolute position of fascism on the moral spectrum by constantly redefining the term to such ridiculously broad and mundane axioms that going to the gym, drinking milk, wanting to start a family, or heaven forbid being a patriot are seen as red flags or “nazi dogwistles”

if you turn everything normal into fascism, you turn fascism normal.

And bad actors like Spencer or in this case Bannon will take the piss out on it and get away with it scot-free, because the seriousness has been slowly drained from it.

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

if you turn everything normal into fascism, you turn fascism normal.

I mean, Trump and other far right voters are supporting parties extolling the tenets of fascism like, 15/15. It’s their core tactic b/c it’s effective especially when the public isn’t well informed and often religious. Doesn’t mean your average voter understands they are supporting fascist-leaning groups though so they take offense. Not sure how the other examples are relevant outside of conservative news pockets. The patriot example is real though but mainly b/c it’s often fake patriotism people take exception with.

 

[Jetflag]

the tenets of fascism

I think that^ specifically is exactly where the problem lies in the proper identification of said groups and (in)accurate labelling

the tenets have been re-defined by academics throughout the decades to such a broad stroke that you can apply them to almost everything and everyone to some degree and what’s worse.. the rule isn’t “something has to tag all the boxes consecutively” the rule is: “if one or two tagged? -> fascism.

and that’s a problem because then everything defacto becomes fascism, and it’s impossible to seperate the weed from the chaff.

fascism is desire for) a form of big, extremely authoritarian, jingoistic government that is anti-liberal/liberty, anti-communist, anti-democracy and anti-parlement.

I don’t know which groups you are specifically refering to but I would guess (and correct me if I’m wrong here please) that most if not all of them are US based and such broadly speaking

- anti big authoritarian government
- pro parliament/ constitution
- pro liberal/ liberty, even leaning libertarian
- pro democracy/ populist

the only two boxes they or the Trump administration would then tick is: anti-communist (which, let’s be honest, any well -thinking person is after the cccp/ ussr horror of the late mid century) And pro-own country/ Nationalist (which most countries understandably are given its a government voted in by the national citizenry)

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

the tenets have been re-defined by academics throughout the decades to such a broad stroke that you can apply them to almost everything and everyone to some degree and what’s worse.. the rule isn’t “something has to tag all the boxes consecutively” the rule is: “if one or two tagged? -> fascism.

I remember this list published a bit over 20 years ago that the state college near where I am from was using in their coursework. Mind you this was the Bush Jr era, long before Trumpism. It's less about fascism in a purely, "let's repeat Hilter/Mussolini complete with their historical motivations" and more, "this is how fascists came to power and how this movement relates to modern times". I too found this list a bit overly broad, and worked with the O3-mini model to craft this list below. Personally, I think it well illustrates the similarity between what Trump is trying or succeeding in doing in the USA and abroad. You might argue some of these don't align, like aggressive militarism, vs Trump pulling back on military action. The USA in 2025 doesnt need agressive military action to sway the globe to its whims. Though,Trump wants to take over Gaza too lol. Do you think he would avoid military action if it suited his goals? I don't think so. The other that doesn't quite fit is corporatism. But I would argue that crony capitalism might be even worse if the USA lacks checks and balances while swaths of the government is privatized - likely with higher costs, and control under a private oligarchy vs under a corporatist state. Those two aside, I think the current admin and the far right across the globe are following this playbook. I mean, if you look at how closely the other 8/10 are being followed, it's pretty damned close indeed.

• Radical Nationalism and Mythic Rebirth
  Fascism historically centered on the belief that the nation was in decline or crisis—and that a revolutionary, mythic rebirth was needed. This “palingenetic” vision cast the nation as an organic entity destined for renewal.
• Cult of Personality and Authoritarian Leadership
  Central to historical fascism was the figure of a charismatic, “infallible” leader who embodied national will. This leader was seen as the personification of the nation’s destiny, with unquestioned authority.
• Anti-Democratic and Totalitarian Ideals
  Fascist regimes rejected liberal democracy and pluralism. Instead, they favored centralized power through one-party rule, arguing that traditional democratic institutions were weak and divisive.
• Intense Anti-Communism and Anti-Liberalism
  Fascism defined itself in opposition to both Marxist socialism and the liberal democratic order. It portrayed these ideologies as threats to national unity and social order.
• Militarism and Aggressive Expansionism
  A hallmark of historical fascism was an obsession with militarism. Fascists glorified military strength and often pursued expansionist policies as a means of restoring national pride and power.
• Propaganda, Mass Mobilization, and Control of Culture
  Fascist movements made effective use of propaganda and mass rallies to mobilize popular support. They controlled media and cultural institutions to promote their ideological narrative and to shape public opinion.
• Corporatist Economic Organization
  Rather than endorse class conflict, fascism promoted a “third way” in economics. This involved organizing society into corporative groups (representing workers, employers, etc.) under state supervision—a model meant to supersede both capitalism and socialism.
• Social Darwinism and Racial Purity Ideals
  Many fascist ideologies incorporated ideas of social hierarchy and racial purity. This often led to policies based on exclusion, xenophobia, and the persecution of those deemed “outsiders” or inferior, though the specifics varied across regimes.
• Rejection of Enlightenment Rationality
  Fascism frequently disparaged the rational, deliberative traditions of the Enlightenment. Instead, it embraced emotion, myth, and irrationality as instruments for mobilizing the masses and asserting national destiny.
• Political Violence and Repression
  Historically, fascist movements did not shy away from using violence as a political tool. Paramilitary organizations and state-sanctioned repression were used to eliminate opposition, consolidate power, and enforce ideological conformity.

 

[Jetflag]

I remember this list published a bit over 20 years ago that the state college near where I am from was using in their coursework. Mind you this was the Bush Jr era, long before Trumpism. It's less about fascism in a purely, "let's repeat Hilter/Mussolini complete with their historical motivations" and more, "this is how fascists came to power and how this movement relates to modern times". I too found this list a bit overly broad, and worked with the O3-mini model to craft this list below.

Well its a lot better already then some of the crazy one’s i’ve seen floating around so kudos for that heh , but still, things like Cult of personality/Authoritarian leadership goes for any socialist/communist dictatorship or even liberal projects (Churchill, Zelensky etc.) Same with Propaganda, Mass mobilization and Control of culture.

You might argue some of these don't align

I’ll go one further, I think most of them don’t align. Which Is i’m of the opinion that the Trump regime isn’t fascist. It might borrow one or two things from it, (like most governments defacto do) but the MAGA movement is something different. The closest thing I would dub it as from an ideological perspective is Post Liberal.

The only two boxes from the list I see him tick without question are one and nine (two is again I think to much of a board stroke as a general concept, though i’m willing to grant it, the man is definitely a cult of personality. )

 

[SaltAcidFatHeatAcid]

I’ll go one further, I think most of them don’t align. Which Is i’m of the opinion that the Trump regime isn’t fascist. It might borrow one or two things from it, (like most governments defacto do) but the MAGA movement is something different. The closest thing I would dub it as from an ideological perspective is Post Liberal.

Agree to disagree I guess. It doesn't really matter what you call it anyway. It's not good for my country and our future.

Meanwhile, I'm just sitting here watching the new admin corrupt and dismantle our gov't structure in real time, while the checks and balances intended to prevent it falter. Also, while watching a realignment of our transatlantic relationships while we suddenly mysteriously align with Russia on the world stage. I'm actually in Australia right now and the conversations with people here have been quite interesting to say the least. At least the folks here are nice to me even while they begin to hate America.

I mentioned it previously, though the recent resurgence of theories of Trump being a Russian asset in the news are also interesting. It's been reported on since at least 2018 IIRC. Trump has a long history with Russia with his business dealings and with the likes of Manafort in his political sphere. I wonder if someone will pull on this thread hard enough to reveal new information, though it may not matter. He acts like an asset regardless of whether or not the allegations are true.