A video explaining modern monetary theory and how with a little Marxism it can benefit everyone.
Not really. Even in the video you yourself links he’s calling an end to the conflict between Ukraine and Russia and an end to US involvement.
Advanced "both side"ing going on here. What does it even mean to call an end to conflict? Russia is welcome to go back home and lick its wound, why is the onus on Ukraine to end conflict?
And end US involvement? So Russia can overrun an independent country?
That you have to ask Second Thought. This is what he has said about the conflict:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
You should read the thread if you’re interested.
Wow. You are either incredibly dumb or incredibly disingenuous, just as zero thought funnily enough.
Calling it “end to the conflict” is such a slimy way to say what he actually wants. He wants ukraine to give up. He wants ruzzia to get away with everything they have done and to ignore all the atrocities they have committed.
It’s like saying that allies should have given up after Nazi germany and ussr conquered Poland. “Oh, end the conflict, so many people have died!!!” Sure, lets just let nazis happily do their genocide while we look the other way. Same as ruzzians committing active genocide in ukraine.
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
If you have watched the video and not noticed the insane amount of lies, something is genuinely wrong with you. It is pure unfiltered ruzzian and Chinese propaganda. Nothing else.
JT, the creator of ST, certainly has expressed various views that many find problematic, respecting Marxism-Leninism and related historic events.
Nevertheless, the ST channel itself is curated to explain values and objectives that are largely noncontroversial in leftist circles, anti-capitalist and socialist. I feel JT deserves some acknowledgment for successfully explaining such ideas while separating some of his own more controversial leanings.
The broad observation is that the political world is not divided between those who criticize NATO and also laud Putin, versus those with sympathies exactly the inverse. It is possible to criticize the practices and alignments of one’s own nation, without having distorted views about another.
Views about the Russian invasion of Ukraine are too nuanced and complex that anyone’s may be reduced meaningfully to a few lines of text. It is helpful to avoid attempting clean demarcations between right versus wrong.
Views about the Ruzzian invasion are not nuanced and complex. You either support a democratic nation that is under attack from a dictatorial fascist regime or you dont.
I’m not going to engage with your personal attacks and you should feel shameful for saying such nasty things to a stranger you hardly know.
The Ukraine-Russia conflict can be viewed in many different ways. One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that’s a valid way to look at the conflict. I’m sure even he would agree of that. However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they’re going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?
US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.
That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.
If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.
And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.
Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don’t try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn’t static and time changes things.
Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn’t mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that’s just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.
One of them is Russia being an aggressor and waging an illegal war of conquest like Nazi Germany, and that’s a valid way to look at the conflict.
That is the ONLY valid way to look at the conflict. Ruzzia illegaly invaded ukraine both in 2014 and 2021.
I’m sure even he would agree of that.
He would not.
However the conflict is also very dangerous, especially with NATO involvement. The biggest threat is actually if the war would escalate into nuclear annihilation because Putin has threatened that if Russia loses, they’re going to start nuking. Have you forgotten about that?
Those are empty threats, if you have seen the state of Ruzzian equipment you would understand that. The only country that would get annihilated in this conflict would be Ruzzia.
“US involvement is the thing that actively saves innocent lives in this conflict. Shooting down missiles, giving ukranian soldiers more protection, and more ways to remove invaders from their lands.” That is your opinion. A missile can be used to shoot a helicopter just as easily on the Ukraine side of the border as on the Russian side of the border.
How is that an argument? Both are valid and good ways to protect Ukraine. One less helicopter means one less chance for an innocent ukrainan to be harmed.
If we assume that Ukraine would manage to sue for some sort of white peace or extended ceasefire, what would that mean with the supplies that has been lent to Ukraine and the Ukrainian people and all the debt that Ukraine is racking up? Who do you think will have to pay for all that and what would the consequences be for Ukrainians? Probably not very good things. Possibly privatizations, international loans from WTO or other forms of neocolonialism. The intent of involvement from the west is highly suspicious and deserve its own scrutiny.
Those supplies would be used to defend ukraine and bolster the border with the two fascist nations that border it. Banks have frozen accounts of ork oligarchs, have seized materiel and such. Those can be the start. The international community can band together to help. It would not be the first time.
Europes involvement is not at all suspicious. It’s a brutal attack on a sovereign nation near their borders. You would be insane to not support them.
“And what do you think putting and “end” to the conflict would achieve? Ruzzia would resupply and attack in 5 years again.” Maybe so, or maybe there might be a regime change in 5 years? Maybe with some time passing Putin somehow dies? Of sickness, old age or some other reason? In 5 years Putin would be over the average life expectancy of Russians. Maybe the Russians don’t try again in 5 years because they got humiliated this time? The world isn’t static and time changes things.
If Ruzzians are not humiliated on the world stage in a way that wakes up even the most politically dead in the country, nothing will change. If we give them ANY concession, nothing will change. Total and absolute withdrawal, that is what needs to happen.
Second thought released its own video surrounding the Ukraine conflict and in a comment he posted he outlined his positions surrounding the conflict. I quote:
- This war doesn’t benefit the average people of Ukraine or Russia. They’re suffering needlessly for the sake of geopolitical jockeying.
How hard is it to fucking understand, RUZZIA. INVADED. UKRAINE. People suffer BECAUSE OF RUZZIA, not because of “geopolitical jockeying” Jesus fucking chirst man. The only one who is in fault is ruzzia, if they wanted they could retreat now
- Sanctions on Russia will only hurt the everyday citizen, not the oligarchs or the powerful. Sanctions are a brutal, inhumane tool and we should oppose them.
Again, wrong. Sanctions have drastically reduced the capability of ruzzia to make new tanks, weapons, and rockets. Thanks to sanctions, ruzzia is unable to make long range rockets that have been indiscriminately killing civilians.
- Anti-war is the only principled position. Escalating into a hot war with another nuclear power is a death sentence.
It absolutely fucking isn’t. Once again, tell that to WW2 veterans who have fought and died for the free world. A just society who accepts unjustifiable people and positions is not just.
- This conflict should be resolved diplomatically. That must include an end to hostilities, as well as a new agreement that prevents NATO expansion towards “unfriendly” states. NATO is a relic of the Cold War, and it doesn’t do anyone any good. A bomb is a bomb, no matter what language you use to make it seem justified.
Holy fucking shit here we go. The myth of NATO expansion. Such a funny lie and I am so happy you brought it up. Thankfully it has been completely annihilated. https://youtu.be/FVmmASrAL-Q?si=gN80y0EnM2W1qJuT
This is similar to the things he said in your video you linked. What has he lied about? Can you name even one contradiction? That doesn’t mean that he wants Ukraine to surrender or give up, rather that’s just your interpretation of his stance which is blatantly wrong and has no evidence. The fact that you try to claim otherwise because he calls for peace is just slander.
It isn’t, if I tried to explain every single contradiction and lie he has spouted in that video i would hit the character limit. Instead, I am liking a debunk of dylan burns and keffals.