Brian Berletic, April 22, 2025
Recent comments from current US Secretary of State Marco Rubio have signaled Washington’s intent to abandon peace efforts if progress isn’t made between Russia and Ukraine.
Related:
YouTube – Brian Berletic: Trump Will Sacrifice Europe To Russia While Preparing For War With China
The ‘Foreign Policy Consensus’ Is Alive and Well in Washington
by José Niño, Libertarian Institute
Brian Berletic, a former U.S. Marine now residing in Thailand, believes something bigger might be at play with Trump’s foreign policy agenda. The talk of foreign policy restraint vis-a-visa Russia is merely a facade. Berletic pointed out that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s “division of labor” framework during his February 2025 address in Brussels will only increase tensions with Russia.
Read More »
Vladimir Lenin once remarked, “It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain,” highlighting the value of constructive dialogue and education over emotional outbursts or hostile rhetoric. As a revolutionary thinker and leader, Lenin stressed the importance of articulating ideas and strategies clearly to foster understanding and rally support for the socialist movement.
He criticized those who relied on anger, insults, or simplistic slogans, arguing that such tactics undermined the more challenging but essential work of educating and persuading others. For Lenin, successful revolutionary efforts depended on thoughtful explanation, open dialogue, and the ability to engage with people on a rational level. This method was crucial for building a disciplined and informed movement capable of achieving lasting goals, rather than succumbing to fleeting emotional appeals or divisive strategies.
Ultimately, Lenin advocated for a deliberate and strategic approach to political struggle—one rooted in clarity, reason, and the empowerment of the working class through education and mutual understanding.
Foreign troops and peace (Google translate)
by @nsanzo
“The National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine supported the decision to appeal to the United Nations and the European Union on the “deployment of a peacekeeping and security mission in Ukraine.” This is not news from today, when the composition and size of a possible peacekeeping mission of European countries is being discussed after the possible ceasefire, but from February 18, 2015. Days earlier, in the Belarusian capital, after negotiations involving Angela Merkel, François Hollande, Petro Poroshenko and Vladimir Putin, the only peace agreement of this war had been signed and a ceasefire was to begin, which was to be routinely violated, and the political process that would return Donbass to Ukraine under very specific conditions and with certain linguistic, cultural, political and economic rights that Kiev always considered unacceptable and never had the slightest intention of fulfilling. Ukraine, which had suffered the second major defeat in the Donbass war at Debaltsevo after Ilovaisk in September 2014, was at its lowest point, its army was at risk of being overwhelmed and it needed to stop the war in order to recover and become stronger while waiting for the next phase of a war that all parties were aware was not over.
Read More »
Trumpism, NATO and the Ukraine war (original)
“Two years ago, General Mark A. Milley, then President Biden’s chief military adviser, suggested that neither Russia nor Ukraine could win the war. A negotiated solution, he argued, was the only path to peace. His comments caused a furor among senior officials. But President-elect Donald J. Trump’s victory is making General Milley’s prediction come true,” wrote The New York Times in an article published last week, part of a growing line of arguments by those who fear that the arrival of the new Republican administration will mean leaving Ukraine to its own devices. These articles, present in all major American and European media, take literally Trump’s desire to end the war and his lack of interest in the situation in Ukraine. This has also been helped by the words of JD Vance, who, from his ignorance of the conflict, has proposed a plan that can only satisfy Russia, or the exalted response of Donald Trump Jr. after the confirmation of the American permission to use Western missiles against targets on the territory of mainland Russia. Sometimes, think-tankers and experts also add Trump’s disdain for NATO or his desire not to rescue member countries that do not meet the minimum investment required by the Alliance in the event of a Russian attack.
Read More »
Bourgeois And Proletarian Democracy
Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor. It is this truth, which forms a most essential part of Marx’s teaching, that Kautsky the “Marxist” has failed to understand. On this—the fundamental issue—Kautsky offers “delights” for the bourgeoisie instead of a scientific criticism of those conditions which make every bourgeois democracy a democracy for the rich.
Related:
‘The liar is inescapably concerned with truth-values. In order to invent a lie at all, he must think he knows what is true.’ (p. 51)
The Danger of Bullshit: Revisiting Harry Frankfurt’s Classic Essay
Harry Frankfurt argues that bullshit is more dangerous than lying. At first sight, this seems counter-intuitive. Surely lying is worse than bullshitting? Liars are intentionally and deliberately trying to deceive us. Normally, doing something bad (e.g. deceiving someone) intentionally makes the action worse than if it is done unintentionally, for example accidentally or absentmindedly. If this is the case, how can bullshit be worse than lying?
The reason Frankfurt gives is that, whereas liars at least pay some respect to the difference between what is true and what isn’t, bullshitters completely disregard it. They simply don’t care about the difference. This, Frankfurt argues, means that compulsive bullshitters become progressively less able to tell the truth than compulsive liars. Liars and truth tellers are playing on opposite sides of the same game. Bullshitters are playing a different game entirely where the rules of truth don’t matter. This lack of concern, Frankfurt argues, is more corrosive of one’s ability to distinguish the truth than deliberately obscuring the truth. Once one gets into the habit of bullshitting, it is difficult to get out of it.
Related:
Ms. Cat’s Chronicles 
You must be logged in to post a comment.