2
Some feeds I'm interested in.
(lemmy.ml)
I'm going to say up front that I know this is a lot of RSS feeds. You are welcome to tell me I need to trim the list a bit.
- Caitlin Johnst: https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/feed
- Socialism For All: https://socialismforall.substack.com/feed
- Dropsite News https://www.dropsitenews.com/feed
- Historicly: https://www.historicly.net/feed
- Ken Klippenstein: https://www.kenklippenstein.com/feed
- Inside China Business: https://kdwalmsley.substack.com/feed
News and Politics:
- Democracy Now: https://www.democracynow.org/democracynow.rss
- Common Dreams: https://www.commondreams.org/feeds/news.rss
- MR Online: https://mronline.org/feed/
- Peoples Dispatch: https://peoplesdispatch.org/feed/
- Truthout: https://truthout.org/feed/?withoutcomments=1
- Workers World: https://www.workers.org/feed/
- Mondoweiss: https://mondoweiss.net/feed/
- The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/feed/?mk=fl_is_on_feature_page&mv=1
- The Grayzone: https://thegrayzone.com/feed/
- Geopolitical Economy Report: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/feed/
- In These Times: https://inthesetimes.com/rss
- Liberation News: https://www.liberationnews.org/feed/
- MintPress News: https://www.mintpressnews.com/feed/
- Counter Punch: https://www.counterpunch.org/feed/
- Break Through News: https://breakthroughnews.org/feed/
- Novara Media: https://novaramedia.com/feed/
Comics:
- Penny Arcade: https://www.penny-arcade.com/feed/
- Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/rss
Honestly, I'm not sure were going to see eye to eye here. You're effectively arguing that my highly critical perspective on NATO isn't valid or justified, while acknowledging that my highly critical perspective on israel is vaid and justified, to the point that NYT isn't on the site (which I'm fine with, especially after this recent article they published). When both perspectives are rooted in anti-imperialist views, in historical materialist views, in analysis that accurately places the US at the center of both these conflicts (with NATO as the lapdog in the Ukraine conflict).
With everything the US has been doing to facilitate and aid in the genocide of Palestinians, is it that hard to imagine that they would put another country is a dire position to support their own geopolitical ends? That they would engineer conditions in Ukraine that would goad and provoke Russia into a conflict? I mean Lindsey Graham was quoted saying:
He says the quite part out loud. These are the words of racketeers, not allies. The US State department, in collaboration with Israel are genociding Palestinians, and in collaboration with NATO pushing Ukrainians into the meat grinder of war. This doesn't even touch other active conflicts they engineer, like the one in the DRC, which has never gotten the same level of press.
There is no good way out of this for Ukraine, NATO and the US state department do not care about what's best for them. They will hang them out to dry and squeeze every last drop of value out of their people and their land. It won't end with Ukraine either. NATO has it's sights on China, they will do the same thing to Taiwan, and any other small nation in China's vicinity.
I'm not sure at this point that NATO would even allow it to end. They would have Zelensky killed and replaced if necessary. It's not outside of the US playbook.
What? No. I'm just saying that I disagree with it.
(Actually, highly critical perspective of NATO in general I can completely agree with, I spent a lot of my youth being vigorously critical of NATO while they were engaged in bombing the shit out of Yugoslavia and critical of the US for a huge multitude of reasons. I'm just saying that this particular criticism of NATO, that they were the ones that engineered the Ukraine war, I disagree with.)
It's not hard to imagine, they do it constantly. Including, right now, to Ukraine, by being overall a shitty partner, providing an inconsistent supply of weapons which the Ukrainians can't really turn down but which also come with a big laundry list of restrictions on how they're allowed to use them. I get why they do it, starting WW3 is something that impacts the US and they don't want that, whereas dead Ukrainians aren't something that impacts them so they're fine with it. I'm just saying that doesn't automatically mean that any particular theory which also includes them putting another country in a dire position etc etc automatically therefore becomes true.
You said you didn't want to debate the Ukraine war, so I didn't really say much about it, but if you want me to explain in detail why I don't agree with the theory I'm fine with doing that.